Date:
From: Bob Inkster
Subject: Lead Facilitator’s Summary of Work
on Transfer Curriculum Issues in the English Discipline, Fall,
2002
The facilitators first met at
#1: Content and credits of Goal 1 college composition courses are inconsistent, causing transfer problems for students.
#2: Assessment/placement
is inconsistent within MnSCU schools, thereby establishing different
student entry levels into college composition.
We found almost immediately that in order to address the areas of concern effectively, we need better information about the practices at all our institutions. Hence, with the assistance of MnSCU staff, we identified people at each MnSCU institution who could provide information regarding these two issues at their respective institutions, and we broadcast an email questionnaire to these people. In addition, at the October meeting, we listed but did not discuss transfer issues relating to 200- and 300-level classes:
-
acceptance of 200-level classes in majors by 4-yr schools
- acceptance of 300-level classes in the MnTC
To date, we still have not had a substantive discussion
of these issues.
Our plan at the October meeting was that we would collate
and discuss the results of the surveys at a meeting on November 22 attended
by a larger contingent of English faculty.
However, discussion at the November 22 meeting quickly indicated
a desire to discuss the issues further, and the data analysis and reduction
was postponed to a later date. At
this writing, the data are still to be organized and collated for analysis.
The group meeting on November 22 designated a committee
comprising the group of facilitators from October 10 (Bob Inkster, Ray
Anschel, Sandy Hofsommer, and Scott Wrobel) plus Don Larsson to draft
a memo to Linda Baer making the following three requests relative to
the issues identified above:
1. Testing and placement into the transfer curriculum.
Salient features of this memo will be the following.
-
All students at open-door institutions must take a placement instrument and must score at a level that the English faculty judge appropriate before being allowed to enroll in the writing course(s) that comprise(s) the writing component of Minnesota Transfer Curriculum.
- Writing faculty must be able to require
a writing sample when they judge a sample to be needed.
- The chancellor's office must enforce Rule 3.3, requiring appropriate gatekeeping and eliminating end runs for students who do not place into the transfer curriculum.
3. Baccalaureate institutions may use upper-division
courses with appropriate intensities and types of writing to fulfill
the second half of the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum writing component.
However, subsequent discussion among faculty, particularly
at baccalaureate institutions but also at two-year institutions as well,
has revealed that item #2 of this proposed memo, even if qualified by
item #3, is unworkable and unacceptable.
The working/drafting group is currently scheduled tentatively
to meet in January and address the issues as they now stand.
In addition, the substantial amount of data collected via the
survey of October-November has yet to be reduced, collated, and analyzed.
An initial organizing of these data will hopefully occur before
the smaller working group meets again in January.
A significant number of substantial issues clearly remain unresolved. It’s likely that on some issues, such as the 8-credit proposal for the composition sequence, we will not achieve an agreement. Nonetheless, there are issues where interests of faculty and students converge across all types of institutions, and we can achieve some univocal commitments on important issues. At this time, I plan to propose a session for the spring meeting of the Minnesota Council of Teachers of English for further discussions in a larger forum.