ANNOUNCEMENTS Chancellor's Inaugural Activities - April 14-15, 1988 April 14 8:00 p.m. Inaugural Concert, Wright Auditorium April 15 *11:00 a.m. Inaugural Ceremony, Wright Auditorium 2:30 p.m. Inaugural Symposium, Hendrix Theatre 7:00 p.m. Chancellor's Society Dinner and Inaugural Ball, Minges Coliseum *Although classes have not been cancelled on April 15, Dr. Bloodworth has announced that any faculty member who wishes to march in the processional may cancel individual classes scheduled to meet at the time of the ceremony. The West Area Residence Council and the Student Health Center are sponsoring the third Annual "Life's a Health Affair" today from 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. on the lawn outside Mendenhall Student Center. Rain Date: April 14, 1988. The Videotapes of Dr. Wagenaar's presentations on teaching effectiveness are available for viewing in the Faculty Senate Office. The tapes may be viewed in the office conference room, or checked-out for a period of no more than 10 working days. The first session, "Spectrum of Faculty Evaluation" is contained on two tapes and the second session, "Models of Faculty Development"' is on one tape. When requesting the videotapes, please specify which tape(s) you desire. Videotapes will not be forwarded through campus mail, you must pick them up in person. Senate Committee Chairs: Please note that all committee annual reports are due in the Faculty Senate Office no later than Friday, April 29, 1988, 4:30 p.m. The Faculty Senators and Committee Chairs will interview the third candidate for the position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. Phillip Thomas, on Tuesday, April 19, 1988, 11:15-12:15, in the Nursing Building, Room 101. Senate Resolutions have been approved by the Chancellor as follows: #88-14 Spring 1988 Graduation List #88-15 Endorsement of the Sentiment of SGA Resolution #L.R. 11-3, 2/9/88 #88-16 Faculty Senate Academic Committee Ex-officio Members Voting Privileges #88-17 Curriculum Committee Report: Minutes of February 11, 1988 #88-18 Curriculum Committee Report: Minutes of February 25, 1988 A response to resolution #88-19, "Material Procedural Irregularities", will be given by May 1, 1988. VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY invites nominations and applications for the position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor, who reports directly to the Chancellor, is the chief academic officer and provides academic leadership for the College of Arts and Sciences and seven professional schools. Candidates for the position must have the following: -~terminal degree and evidence of significant scholarly achievement; -experience at a dean's or equivalent level in an institution of higher education; -experience with budget management; -ability to communicate effectively; -ability to work within a diversified comprehensive institution serving a wide range of constituencies. Applicants should submit a letter of application, complete resume, official transcript, and a statement of his or her management style, educational philosophy, and beliefs concerning the mission of a university in the contemporary world. In addition, candidates should submit the names of five individuals who may be contacted for a reference in the event of final consideration. The position is available June 1, 1988. Applications will be accepted until February 1, 1988. Application materials should be sent to: Dr sCar LyAdsex Chairperson, Search Committee 104 Spilman Building East Carolina University Greenville, NC °27858-4353 Federal law requires documentation of identity and employability before final consideration. East Carolina University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and as such encourages applications from qualified women and minorities. 1987/88 PARKING AND TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend that the dirt parking lot on the north side of Jones Dormitory be paved and security lights be put in place. Recommend that the dirt parking lot on East Ninth Street be paved. Recommend that no more leased private parking be assigned on the East Fifth Street campus without consultation with the Parking and Traffic Committee. Recommend the "prestige parking" assigned Pirate Club members, be charged a proportional fee to the Club, as student, staff and faculty parking fees have been used to develop these parking areas. Recommend, in order to free up to 125 parking spaces on the East Fifth Street campus, that a University motor pool for state-owned vehicles be developed and that units, which prefer to keep their state-owned vehicles on this campus, be assessed the same parking fees as those persons who have leased private parking privileges. Recommend that all parking fees and fines be increased at the same proportional rate as the present increase in student, staff, and faculty parking permit fees. REPORT TO THE FACULTY SENATE OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY from the AD HOC COMMITTEE ON WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM At its meeting of April 1987, the Faculty Senate adopted Resolution No. 87-12, which established this committee and charged it with the following tasks: "(1) to collect relevant information about research on writing; (2) to study writing-across-the-curriculum programs in use at other institutions with student populations similar to the student population at East Carolina University; (3) to analyze these findings and any other relevant data in light of the needs of ECU faculty and students; (4) to make specific recommendations to the Senate for the development of a program in writing across the curriculum so that the Senate can use the available information to decide if such a program can and should be instituted at East Carolina University. * The Work of the Committee To satisfy the demands of these four tasks, we developed five subcommittees: one to collect relevant information on research in writing, a second to investigate programs at other universities, a third to survey faculty interests and needs, the fourth to Survey students, and the last to make specific recommendations--based on findings supplied by the other four subcommittees--on writing across the curriculum at ECU. The work of the first four subcommittees complete, what follows is a report which highlights our findings and a resolution that requests that the Senate permit the Ad Hoc Writing Across the Curriculum Committee to finish its work during the 1988-89 academic year. Information on Research on Writing Most theorists agree that writing is at the center of the educational experience. In fact, they contend that the writing process involves the kind of cognition generally Labelled thinking. Writing requires the writer to analyze, to organize and to articulate. In turn, articulation forces writers to perform tasks that result in a better understanding of the subject. Writers compare and contrast, classify and illustrate, define and argue, and present that information for the edification or entertainment of an audience. The act of writing is a reinforcing activity, involving the brain, the eye, and the hand. But what is writing across the curriculum? Generally speaking, writing across the curriculum may signify, depending on context, a philosophy, a nationwide movement, a local program, or a combination of these. For Our purposes, we have used writing across the curriculum to refer to the use of student writing by teachers in all disciplines as a means of (1) increasing learning and (2) improving students’ writing ability. Since writing across the curriculum Suggests a systematic approach, often by members of a university’s faculty, the term also implies the faculty’s commitment to these aims. Such programs respect and support the work of the many teachers at all levels and in all content areas who are using writing in ways that increase and deepen their students’ learning of course material while building their skills as writers. In a survey entitled "Programs for Writing Across the Curriculum: A Report, * Griffin writes that "While writing-across-the-curriculum programs across the country do differ widely, both in the way they come into being and in their designs, most have something in common--the premises on which they are based." Premises underlying writing -across-the-curriculum programs include the following: (1) Writing skills must be practiced and reinforced throughout the Curriculum, otherwise they will atrophy, no matter how well they were taught in the beginning; (2) To write is to learn; (3) Since written discourse is central to a university education, the responsibility for the quality of student writing is university-wide. Specific studies supporting of writing to learn and writing to communicate learning are available as full reports in the Faculty Senate office. Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Programs at Gther Institutions Phone interviews with faculty from nine universities "comparable" to ECU provided the following information. Five of the universities have an active program. Each of the four that do not have a program to help students who have writing deficiencies. The schools with the most active programs work under some form of state legislative mandate, such as Florida’s Gordon Rule, which requires every freshman to pass a writing intensive course in either history or philosophy. Similar statewide proficiency examinations are required of juniors in Arkansas and freshmen in California. In fact, eight of the nine universities contacted require proficiency exams similar in their operation to ECU’s freshman placement examination. Programs are administered usually by a director of writing, through the vice-chancellor’s office or through a "general college" structure. At several of the schools, the programs are supervised by a committee. About half of the programs have a budget separate from the English Department’s. The most frequently reported activity (in seven of the nine universities) was required writing intensive courses offered by and related to some discipline other than English. Other forms of writing included essays, essay examinations, and term papers. Topics were usually related to the individual discipline--not to "English topics." Writing for purpoees of learning was mentioned by all schools and seems to be a primary way in which writing is used across the disciplines. Writing Center activity is important to most of the programs examined. Other activities, such as team teaching and paired courses, were rarely mentioned. Workshops conducted by outside experts serve as a motivational device as well as a method of instruction. Most faculty are paid for participating in workshops. In fact, faculty incentives are needed to secure faculty participation and support. Incentives besides extra (often nominal) pay include reduced class sizes and reduced teaching loads. These schools frequently mentioned the difficulty of keeping a program going after the first year or two. Some formal structure with administrative support seems necessary. A standing supervisory committee which approves courses as "writing intensive” and which has the power to eliminate that designation from courses seems to be successful. Incentives for faculty participation and goals for student participation such as passing an exit exam seem necessary for the successful operation of a program. Several interviewees emphasized the necessity of a formal evaluation scheme to determine what effects the various activities have on student writing. Faculty Interests and Needs at ECU During November and December 1987, the subcommittee developed a questionnaire available (with raw data and a full report) in the Faculty Senate office. The questionnaire was designed to gain information on the ECU faculty’s cpinion of issues and possibilities in writing across the curriculum. During the third week in January, questionnaires were sent to 1200 faculty members on the main campus and in the medical school. The number returned was 224. On the whole, responses to the questionnaire suggest that the faculty recognizes a significant problem with students’ writing and is willing to address the problem directly. By far the greatest concern is with the time and effort required to help students develop their writing skills. Fortunately, this concern seems to be addressable not by external motivations such as increased pay but by the simple expedients of providing the time and student-teacher ratios sufficient to do the job. The responses indicate some of the problems that inservice education of writing-across-the-curriculum faculty must solve. Correlations reveal a strong tendency for faculty to covary concern for knowledge of grammar with concern for knowledge of composition skills. Concern with how to respond to student papers is also related to concern for knowledge of grammar and composition skills. We see, therefore, a tendency to understand the teaching of writing as substantially a matter of making comments about the grammatical features in students’ papers. It is no encouragement that faculty are generally confident in their knowledge of grammar and composition skills, and therefore, we may fear, in their understanding of what it takes to improve student writing. We can discern two basic perspectives on student writing prevalent among the faculty: (1) attention to students’ view of the big rhetorical picture--the main ideas, the audience, logic, revision of essays, etc. and (2) attention to students’ view of the little picture--spelling, punctuation, grammatical errors, etc. Given the general tendency to understand writing instruction as commentary on grammar, we can see a contradiction in the outlook of those faculty concerned with students’ seeing the big picture. Noting this contradiction may help some faculty give more attention to discourse level skils, but faculty whose concern is with sentence level features will likely resist abandoning an emphasis on sentece level skills. Faculty report assigning many kinds of writing, but almost half the kinds of student writing reported are those that foster few writing skills: essay exams, class notes, and term papers. There is no evidence of respondents tending to develop writing assignments based on diagnosis of student writing needs. Comments show much support for writing across the curriculum and much concern over the problems in implementing it. They complete a picture of a faculty strongly committed to writing across the curriculum, at least for the present. Student Interests and Needs at ECU During October 1987, the subcommittee developed a questionnaire available (with raw data and a full report) in the Faculty Senate office. The questionnaire was designed to gain information about the opinions and experiences of ECU students as they relate to a possible proposal for writing across the curriculum. During November, 826 surveys were mailed to a representative sample of students. The number returned was 146. Generally, students express a moderate concern that the university should do more to help them develop their writing skills. While students believe effective writing skilis have a high economic value, this belief seems to decline somewhat by the time students have finished three years of education at ECU. As students progress toward university graduation, they become increasinly dissatisfied with the Level of writing thev achieved in the public schools. Students seem uncertain about how weak writing should be remedied. They generally reject a writing proficiency examination as a requirement for graduation. While they support a junior- or a senior-level writing course, they do not want writing required. They do believe that a variety of writing assignments should he included in courses to develop writing ekills. As graduation approaches, students become less satisfied with how their courses have prepared them to write; those who have sought help, Know the location of the Writing Center, or have visited the Writing Center are more satisfed with Current courses regarding writing. Even so, their level of satisfaction is generally low. Students report much the same kind of interest in writing across the curriculum as do faculty. Students see a need to write; they indicate that they are required to write in about half of their classes, while neariy 20 % of the students have not been asked to write in class. As students near graduation, they becowe less satisfied with the instruction in writing they have received during college but less concerned about their writing deficiencies. Students surveyed seem much like students at universities we have studied; they are concerned about their writing skills and the instruction in writing that they have received during their college years. But they are waiting to have a program of instruction presented to them. Formal Proposal Now that this work has been completed, the committee will study the data and present the Senate with a formal proposal during the 1987-88 academic year. 1988-89 RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY GRANTS & 1988 STIPENDS The Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. William Bloodworth, has announced that pending certification of the 1988-89 budget, grants and stipends will be awarded as follows: 1988-89 GRANTS Simon Baker Geography & Planning Don Collins Library & Information Studies Margie Gallagher Home Economics Robert Gantt HPERS Nancy Hobbs Home Economics Richard Israel HPERS Gordon Jendrasiak Physics Bela Karvaly Physics Cliff Knight Biology Evelyn Knight & Hans Johnson Allied Health Donald Lawler English Larry Means Psychology Clarence Morgan Art Donald Neal Geology Linda Rickard HPERS Art Rodriguez Chemistry Martin Schultz Sociology & Anthropology Charles Singhas Biology Mel Stanforth Art Richard Spruill Geology Scott Worley Allied Health Tinsley Yarbrough Political Science Reginald York Social Work 1988 SUMMER STIPENDS Selma Gokcen Music Ron Hoag English Tomis Kapitan Philosophy 1988-89 TEACHING GRANTS & 1988 STIPENDS The Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. William Bloodworth, has announced that pending certification of the 1988-89 budget, grants and stipends will be awarded as follows: 1988-89 GRANTS Sylvia Brown & Sylvene Spickerman Nursing Maria Malby & Foreign Languages & Literatures Myron Gluck Academic Library Services Dorothy Merrow & Maryellen McSweeney Nursing Gary Smith Allied Health Charles Ziehr Geography & Planning 1988 SUMMER STIPENDS Jeannie Golden Psychology William Hoots Technology Kathleen Kennedy Biology