Quality Enhancement Plan Final 20210823 - Saint Leo, FL

On-Site Visit: March 22-25, 2021

Dr. Jeffrey D. Senese, President

Dr. Mary Spoto, Vice President for Academic Affairs

Dr. Chantelle MacPhee, QEP Director

Saint Leo University

2

Table of Contents

FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 3

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 5

QEP TOPIC IDENTIFIED ............................................................................................................................. 5

IMPROVING ................................................................................................................................................ 6

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................. 6

RESOURCES COMMITTED TO THE QEP ...................................................................................................... 7

PLAN TO ASSESS ACHIEVEMENT ............................................................................................................... 8

TOPIC, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT .............................................. 9

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Broad-Based Support of Institutional Constituencies .......................................................................... 9

Topic Selection and Development ...................................................................................................... 12

OFFICIAL DESIGN PHASE ...................................................................................................... 17

ASSESSMENT MEASURES DESIGNED: ...................................................................................................... 18

QEP COURSE REDESIGN FOR ENGLISH, COMPUTER SCIENCE, AND SOCIAL WORK: ................................ 18

STUDENT PROFILE ................................................................................................................................... 18

REDESIGN OF ENG 121/122 .................................................................................................................... 20

STRATEGIES TO ACCOMPLISH WID OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 24

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ....................................................................................... 24

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................. 24

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 25

“Power Skills” and Transferable Writing Skills Demanded by Employers ....................................... 26

Best Practices .................................................................................................................................... 28

ACTIONS AND TIMELINES .................................................................................................... 30

QEP IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE, ACTIONS, AND PHASES ..................................................................... 31

TENTATIVE PROGRAM SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................... 36

Phase Two Programs (2022): ............................................................................................................ 36

Phase Three Programs (2023: ........................................................................................................... 36

Phase Four Programs (2024): ........................................................................................................... 36

Phase Five Programs (2025): ............................................................................................................ 37

INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY AND RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 37

QEP MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 37

RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE QEP .......................................................................................................... 39


3

ASSESSMENT OF OUR QEP .................................................................................................... 42

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT: WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ................................. 42

CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ......................................................................... 42

Assessment/Self-Assessments of Students’ WID Skills and Faculty Development ............................. 48

WID IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 50

FACULTY TRAINING, SUPPORT, AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 50

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 50

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 52

APPENDIX A: QEP DIRECTOR POSITION DESCRIPTION ................................................. 55

APPENDIX B: QEP ASSISTANT .............................................................................................. 56

APPENDIX C: ACADEMIC WRITING AND ASSESSMENT LEADS .................................. 57

APPENDIX D: ENG 121—MASTER SYLLABUS ................................................................... 58

APPENDIX E: ENG 122—MASTER SYLLABUS ................................................................... 70

APPENDIX F: QEP DIRECTOR VITAE ................................................................................... 75

APPENDIX G: MICHAEL NEAL FACULTY DEVELOPMENT DAY FLYER ..................... 76

APPENDIX H: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 77

APPENDIX I: BUDGET APPROVAL MEMO .......................................................................... 78

APPENDIX J: QEP SUPPORT AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED ....... 79

Figures

Figure 1. Faculty Development Day Keynote Speaker Survey ................................................... 12

Figure 2. Faculty Development Day Concurrent Sessions Only Survey ..................................... 13

Figure 3. QEP Timeline. .............................................................................................................. 16

Figure 4. Student Testimonial ...................................................................................................... 22

Figure 5. Strategic Plan Process ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 6. Reporting and responsibility for QEP. ......................................................................... 38

Tables

Table 1 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Leadership Team ..................................................... 10

Table 2 Timeline of QEP Development Activities ........................................................................ 11

Table 3 Student Enrollment by Age............................................................................................. 19

Table 4 Ethnicity of Students ...................................................................................................... 19

Table 5 Milestones achieved for ENG 121/122 ........................................................................... 20


4

Table 6 QEP Implementation University Explorations (Phase 1) & Pilot Programs (Phase 2)

Timeline .................................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 7 QEP Implementation Phases for Undergraduate Disciplines ........................................ 35

Table 8 Summary budget for the QEP ......................................................................................... 41

Table 9 Fall 2, 2018; Spring 1, 2019: ENG 121/122 .................................................................. 43

Table 10 Spring 2, 2019; Summer 1, 2019: ENG 121/122 .......................................................... 43

Table 11 Summer 2, 2019; Fall 1, 2019: ENG 121/122 .............................................................. 43

Table 12 Fall 2, 2019; Spring 1, 2020 ......................................................................................... 44

Table 13 Spring 2, 2020 ............................................................................................................... 44

Table 14 QEP Assessment Plan ................................................................................................... 46

Table 15 Indirect Assessments for the QEP ................................................................................. 47

Table 16 QEP Writing in the Disciplines (WID) Rubric ............................................................. 49


5

Executive Summary

READ! WRITE! transform! reflects Saint Leo University’s (2020a) mission to offer a “practical,

effective model for life and leadership in a challenging world” and the institution’s commitment to

graduate students with transferable writing skills in order to communicate effectively within their chosen

discipline and in the workplace (para. 1). The development of these transferable writing skills— “power

skills”—will occur in five phases for all undergraduate students. In Phase One, English foundations

courses—ENG 121/122—with reading and writing strategies and critical thinking skills will be the main

focus. A rolling implementation schedule will expand writing initiatives to all undergraduate academic

programs; however, the QEP will pilot discipline-specific initiatives throughout the duration of the QEP

in two: Computer Science and Social Work. This progression is well supported by the core philosophy of

WAC (Writing Across the Curriculum): writing is a continuous practice of learning, communication, and

knowledge-making in every discipline (WAC Clearinghouse, 2020a). Writing as knowledge-making is

important to every discipline and important twenty-first century skills sought by Saint Leo graduates.

QEP Topic Identified

The QEP topic stemmed from several regular planning and assessment processes at Saint Leo

University. In 2017, the Office of Academic Affairs convened a strategic planning committee to develop

a five-year strategic plan for Academic Affairs. Research and our own experience clearly show that

higher education must respond to employers’ demands to hire graduates with well-developed “power

skills”, including critical thinking and written communication. In 2018, this plan was incorporated into

Renaissance 2021, the 2018-2021 University Strategic Plan spearheaded by the president of the

University. Regular assessment processes for the institution’s general education outcomes also provided

student learning outcomes data and support for the QEP topic and demonstrated a need to improve

students’ critical thinking and communication skills. The constituents involved in these institutional

processes included faculty, staff, and leadership across Academic Affairs. These systemic and broad-

based processes identified the need to improve students’ ability to communicate effectively through

writing.

The QEP Leadership Team, comprised of representation from senior administrators, faculty, and

staff, reviewed assessment results and constituent feedback, and considered institutional needs,

resources, and the viability of the plan for long-term success. As a result of this process, Saint Leo

University selected Writing in the Disciplines as the focus.

Broad-Based Support of Institutional Constituencies

Broad-based support of institutional constituencies was gained through the engagement of key

stakeholders in developing and initiating the plan. Regular meetings and continual communication will

ensure that stakeholders continue to be appropriately engaged in the implementation and assessment of

the plan. The selection of the specific topic focus began with the faculty during the introduction of

Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) Faculty Development Day activities led by the Center for


6

Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE). Saint Leo faculty presented at concurrent sessions that

represented a variety of colleges and disciplines from across the university. Sessions were broken down

by topics related to writing in the academic programs and were aligned with the keynote topic that was

related to enhancing teaching and learning with writing. Overall, the concurrent sessions generated the

most favorable response from faculty, where writing skills were linked to skills in research, supported by

low stakes writing assignments, and to coaching in interdisciplinary topics. These were related to the

skills necessary in the workplace and which employers are seeking in new employees.

Improving Specific Student Learning Outcomes

After a thorough study of best practices, Saint Leo developed the following Student Learning Outcomes

(SLOs):

1. Students will be able to apply principles of effective writing. (EFW)

i. Students will be able to apply the foundational skills required in writing.

(EFW1.1)

ii. Students will be able to incorporate audience into their analysis. (EFW1.2)

iii. Students will perceive that their writing skills have improved. (EFW1.3)

2. Students will be able to write in various formal and informal contexts appropriate

to their discipline and adhere to the conventions of effective writing in the

discipline. (FIC)

i. Students will apply effective writing skills within the discipline. (FIC2.1)

ii. Students will create effective artifacts within the discipline. (FIC2.2)

3. Students will be able to identify the benefits of writing as a transferable skill for the

workplace. (TSW)

i. Students will identify and explain the benefits of writing in their discipline.

(TSW3.1)

ii. Students will value writing as applied to a discipline. (TSW3.2)

The outcomes are specific and measurable. Baseline data was analyzed, and targets have been

established.

Implementation Strategies

The QEP implements the following strategies:

1. The appointment of a QEP Director who will be responsible for the development,

implementation, and assessment of the QEP.

2. The appointment of a QEP Assistant who will assist the QEP Director in compiling data and

developing WID strategies and guides.

3. The appointment of Academic Writing and Assessment Leads (AWALs) who will be

responsible for working with faculty in the development of program specific WID initiatives.

Training for AWALs will include training on assessment methods and rubrics, and calibration to


7

ensure consistency of assessment across faculty, sections, and modes of learning (Education

Centers, University Campus, and Worldwide Online). The Assessment and Institutional

Research office (AIR) along with the discipline faculty and AWALs will analyze assessment

results for improvement purposes.

4. The WAC Clearinghouse offers a framework for Saint Leo to establish a robust WID resource

center that establishes a discourse community for faculty and students at Saint Leo (WAC

Clearinghouse, 2020c). This WID online resource center will also have links to the WAC

resources at Colorado State University. For students, WID support services will be offered

through the Center for Academic Vision and Excellence (CAVE), including embedded online

tutoring to assist students in all locations and modes of delivery, and resources placed in course

shells for the courses identified with the QEP in collaboration with Learning Design.

5. The development of Library Guides (LibGuides) on critical thinking, and written and oral

communication skills, as well as guides for curriculum standards regarding the content of

writing in specific disciplines.

6. The use of a writing assistant to assist students in WID-specific courses to ensure consistent

application of WID guides and the writing process. The courses would include the goals and

objectives of the QEP, training in the content (WID, etc.) and methods, and assessment of the

outcomes.

7. A professional development faculty training course for all three locations—on University

Campus, Education Centers, and Worldwide Online—in WID best practices to be delivered

through the collaboration with CTLE and Learning Design. The use of on ground and online

webinars and virtual training will also be utilized.

8. The hiring and training of a Student Writing Academic Team (SWAT) who must have

completed ENG 121/122 and have a grade of B or higher in each of those courses. This team of

embedded tutors will assist fellow students in all modalities with their writing. The CAVE will

provide training, workshops, and collaborate with the QEP Writing Assistant in developing an

online WID guide for classes identified with the QEP.

Resources Committed to the QEP

Saint Leo University approved a five-year cumulative budget for initiation, implementation, and

completion of the QEP that encompasses professional staffing, faculty stipends, faculty training,

information technology, and assessment. Existing resources will be reallocated, and new funds and

resources will be committed to ensure the success of the QEP implementation. The integration of the

QEP into ongoing planning and evaluation processes, as described in the next section, will provide

feedback on the progress of the QEP, to determine if adjustments to the resources are necessary.


8

Plan to Assess Achievement

The QEP team developed a comprehensive assessment plan that uses multiple measures to

assess student learning. We designed formative and summative assessment using direct and indirect

measures to evaluate student learning: effective writing (EFW), formal and informal concepts (FIC), and

transferable skills in writing (TSW). Three key assignments aligned with student learning outcomes are

required in ENG 121 and ENG 122. A QEP WID rubric will be implemented in Fall 2021 in ENG 121

and Spring 2022 in ENG 122. Faculty in academic programs will develop guidelines and identify

specific WID artifacts for their disciplines and the courses in them upon implementation in the

disciplines beginning Fall 2022.

To provide a formal structure and processes of evaluating the implementation and success of the

QEP, the evaluation of the QEP will be integrated into regular institutional planning and assessment

processes: 1) the QEP assessment measures will be added to the annual assessment processes for all

programs, and 2) An annual QEP assessment report will be written in collaboration with the QEP

Director, the QEP Assistant, the QEP Writing Assistant, the AWALs, and the Office of Assessment and

Institutional Research (AIR). The report will be reviewed by the QEP Leadership Team, the SACSCOC

Liaison, the Senior Leadership Team, the President, and the Board of Trustees of Saint Leo University.

Strategies for improvement and adjustments to the plan will be based on research and implemented as

needed. We will support faculty and students in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of course

concepts, the organization of course materials, and learn from student and faculty satisfaction with the

courses. In ENG 121/122, assessments will include the following direct measures: a Multimodal

assignment, a Rhetorical Analysis assignment, a Final Reflection, an Annotated Bibliography, a

Literature Review, and a Research Paper. Faculty in Computer Science and Social Work will use a

common WID rubric and a Reflection rubric in each course identified for the QEP in the discipline. The

rubrics assess student comprehension of course materials: discipline-specific discourse in writing

artifacts and theoretical concepts. In addition, the following will be implemented: faculty and end-of-

course student feedback. The focus of the feedback and reflection assignment will be to identify

weaknesses and strengths of course concepts, organization of materials, student and faculty satisfaction

with the course. They will also measure student perception of improvement in writing skills and

determine if there is an improvement in how much students understand and value writing skills as related

to their discipline. The development of Library Guides (LibGuides) on critical thinking, and written and

oral communication skills, as well as guides for curriculum standards regarding the content of writing in

specific disciplines will provide online writing resources for both faculty and students at all modalities:

Education Centers, University Campus, and Worldwide Online.


9

Topic, Comprehensive Planning, and Assessment

Introduction

The purpose of Saint Leo University’s QEP is to improve transferable writing skills to

communicate effectively within a student’s chosen discipline and in the workplace. Saint Leo

University’s (2020a) mission offers a “practical, effective model for life and leadership in a challenging

world; a model based on a steadfast moral consciousness that recognizes the dignity, value, and gifts of

all people” (para. 1). Moreover, Saint Leo’s core values—excellence, community, respect, personal

development, responsible stewardship, and integrity—are interwoven within the QEP’s purpose, goals,

SLOs, and courses and embedded in the assignments (Saint Leo University, 2020). In accordance with

SACS Standard 7.2., writing effectively within the disciplines has a direct correlation to the Saint Leo

Mission Statement and strategic plan: Renaissance 2021. In the strategic plan, Theme 2: Academics and

Goal 1 align with the QEP: Re-envision Existing Programs and Develop New Programs. While the QEP

does not develop new programs as part of its purpose, five phases will be developed to ensure Writing in

the Disciplines in all majors at Saint Leo University. Phase One will re-envision the current ENG

121/122 and Phase Two will include Computer Science and Social Work. Phases Three, Four, and Five

will encompass the remaining disciplines at Saint Leo University. This QEP also builds upon our

University Explorations (UE) Outcomes 1 (Demonstrate Critical Thinking Skills) and 7 (Communicate

clearly and effectively) (Saint Leo University, 2020b). Institution-wide assessment of these outcomes

has revealed the need for development in student writing, and the QEP is designed to improve student

skills in this area. The QEP objectives are to integrate WID best practices at the program level and

establish programs and services to support and enhance discipline-specific learning communities

throughout Saint Leo. Strategies include establishing program-specific writing expectations, providing

support for faculty in WID courses, providing online WID resources for students and faculty, and

professional development to train faculty in WID best practices.

Broad-Based Support of Institutional Constituencies

Saint Leo University’s QEP emerged from the market demand for “soft skills”--Critical

thinking, Problem Solving, Communication, Leadership, Adaptability, and Emotional Intelligence,

which have now been identified as “power skills,” a term believed to be first used by Dartmouth

University President Philip Hanlon (Agarwal, 2018). The National Association of Colleges and

Employers, through a task force of college career services and HR/staffing professionals, identified

critical thinking as first and oral/written communications as the fourth highest competencies required in

the workplace and have remained consistent for the past three years-skills are also identified as “power

skills” (National Association of College and Employers, 2020; Belanger, 2020).

Market needs for “power skills” that transfer from the classroom to the workplace are essential

in a workplace that is rapidly automating. An investment in power skills is directly related to a return of

250 percent less than a year after the trainings were completed. This was identified in a key study by


10

Namrata Kala and cited by Somers (2018). At every level of the workplace, “power skills” are being

used (Somers, 2018). The current work environment is rapidly changing to a team model in which

employees work together to identify problems, suggest solutions, and implement change.

In order to address the market needs for “power skills”, Saint Leo University’s QEP emerged as

a campus initiative with initial piloting beginning in Fall 2020 with ENG 121/122 (Academic Writing I:

Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric, and Academic Writing II: Writing and Research) and COM 203

(Computer Systems). We designed this process to encourage participation with faculty outside of the

Language Studies and the Arts Department, where English courses are housed to larger programs and

different colleges at Saint Leo University: Computer Science (School of Computing, Artificial

Intelligence, Robotics, and Data Science) and Social Work (College of Education and Social Services).

Table 1 contains the names of the QEP Leadership Team, which has provided the leadership and

oversight for this process, and of the University, including senior administrators, faculty, and staff.

Besides the team, there were additional faculty, staff, and administrators who also assisted in the process

from Marketing (Marketing Personnel), Budget (Budget Office Personnel), and the Director of the

Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE). Table 2 contains a detailed timeline with the

main QEP development activities.

Table 1

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Leadership Team

Name Position

Dr. Diane Ball, Chair SACSCOC Liaison, Assistant Vice President

Dr. Mary Spoto Vice President for Academic Affairs

Dr. Craig Cleveland Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs

Dr. Susan Kinsella Dean, College of Education and Social Services

Dr. Heather Parker Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Dr. Chantelle MacPhee QEP Director; Chair, Language Studies and the Arts; Associate Professor, English

Dr. Joshua Adams Assistant Professor, Computer Science

Dr. Robert Lucio Professor, Social Work

Dr. Marcela van Olphen Professor, Spanish and Portuguese

Dr. Keith Burton Assistant Professor of Psychology, Online; Associate Chair, Social Sciences

Ms. Ellen Boylan Director, Assessment and Institutional Research


11

Table 2

Timeline of QEP Development Activities

Date Activity

June 2020 ● Formation of QEP Teams

● Assessment (Adams, Boylan, MacPhee)

● Budget (Cleveland, MacPhee)

● Editing (Ball, Burton, MacPhee, Spoto)

● Literature Review (Lucio, Van Olphen)

● Professional Development (Faculty)

(Kinsella, Parker)

● Marketing (MacPhee, Marketing Team)

June 2020-August 2020 ● Finalization of QEP topic based on analysis

of University Explorations (UE) assessment

data and constituent feedback

● QEP Logo developed with marketing

September 2020 ● Develop Focus Group questions

November 2020 ● QEP Draft #1 Due

December 2020 ● QEP Draft #2 Due

● Focus Groups

● Review of QEP draft by QEP Leadership

Team

● Mentor Visit: Dr. Vandana Gavaskar (Virtual

via Zoom due to COVID-19)

January 2021 ● QEP Final Version Due to QEP Leadership

Team and Mentor Dr. Vandana Gavaskar

● Introduction and Marketing of QEP to

Faculty, students, staff, and administrators,

Saint Leo University: website, press releases,

QEP swag via Vice President for Student

Affairs and Saint Leo Student Government

● Presentation of QEP by QEP Director to QEP

Leadership Team for review and approval

● Presentation of QEP to students at all three

locations: University Campus, Education

Centers, and Worldwide Online.


12

February 2021 ● QEP submitted to SACSCOC

Topic Selection and Development

At Saint Leo University’s biannual professional development meetings, Dr. Candace Roberts,

Director of the CTLE, organized speakers and presentations that were multi-disciplinary in nature. Each

semester, Dr. Roberts sent out a Call for Papers to the faculty at Saint Leo. While the theme for the

meeting was Writing Across the Curriculum, the interdisciplinary presentations and the number of

faculty who presented, collaborated, or attended provided the foundation upon which the idea for WID

emerged for the QEP.

The CTLE team developed sessions broken down by topics: Take Back the Research Paper,

Engaging Minds, Empowering Success: Planning and Implementing Low Stakes Writing in Your

Courses, Writing Resources to Enhance Learning and Support Your Students, Coaching Writing Across

the Semester, Interdisciplinary Faculty Writing Group for Personal and Professional Growth, and

Writing Assessment to improve Writing Skills Across Disciplines. Saint Leo faculty presented at the

concurrent sessions from a variety of Colleges and disciplines from across the university: University

Campus, Education Centers, and Worldwide Online. These workshops were aligned to the topic of the

keynote speaker Michael Neal, Associate Professor of English at the University of Florida: “Enhancing

Teaching and Learning with Writing” (Appendix G).

Surveys were conducted by the CTLE at the conclusion of each concurrent session and the

keynote address. The survey results indicated that 51% of the faculty either detested, disliked, or were

indifferent to the keynote speaker’s topic, which was limited to the English discipline (Figure 1). At the

same time, 81% of the faculty answered either “loved” or “liked” the concurrent sessions (Figure 2),

which were more related to the disciplines in the academic programs.

Figure 1. Faculty Development Day Keynote Speaker Survey

Detest it10%

Dislike it23%

Indifferent18%

Like it29%

Love it20%

Keynote Speaker


13

Figure 2. Faculty Development Day Concurrent Sessions Only Survey

The disparity here clearly indicates that when specifically focused upon English, faculty

responded to the topic in a negative way because of the focus on one discipline in which the majority do

not consider themselves experts in mechanics: grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. When

writing skills were linked to research, low stakes writing, coaching, and interdisciplinary topics, faculty

responded very favorably. Overall, the concurrent sessions generated the most favorable responses and

were related to the “power skills” necessary in the workplace and which employers are seeking in new

employees.

Moreover, Writing in the Disciplines activities in the concurrent sessions were more aligned

with the accrediting bodies of various disciplines and the workplace. (Council on Social Work Education

(CSWE) Commission, 2015). For the QEP, Computer Science and Social Work were chosen to

participate in the QEP pilot throughout the duration of the QEP due to several factors:

1. Social Work recently completed their Annual Performance Review (APR) and

embeds writing activities throughout the program to align with accreditation

standards.

2. At Saint Leo, writing activities are present in the courses identified for the QEP and

will be assessed as part of the QEP. Writing about how to use technology is an

essential need for the workforce, and Computer Science will be addressing this need

as part of the QEP.

3. The Computer Science program has students enrolled in all three modalities at Saint

Leo University: University Campus, Education Centers, and Worldwide Online.

4. The Social Work program has students enrolled on University campus, in the Tampa

Center, and the East Pasco Center. While the program is not offered online yet, the

Detest it0%

Dislike it4%

Indifferent15%

Like it37%

Love it44%

Concurrent Sessions Only


14

goal is for the program to be online after the reaffirmation of accreditation for the

Department of Social Work.

Similarly, writing is an essential component for programmatic accreditation. The Department of

Computer Science has been designated as one of The National Security Administration/Department of

Homeland Security (NSA/DHS) Centers for Academic Excellence (2020). For Computer Science, the

assessments align with this criterion to provide improvements to the program. All data collected from the

QEP will be reported to the Department Chair for use in their accreditation documents. Two of their

accreditation requirements (Program Improvements) best supports the Goals and Student Learning

Outcomes of the QEP. (Program Improvements (DHS), 2020). For Computer Science, the assessments

align with this criterion to provide improvements to the program. All data collected from the QEP will

be reported to the Department Chair for use in their accreditation documents.

The department of Social Work’s accrediting body is the Council for Social Work Education

(CSWE). Competencies Four and Nine support the Program Goals and Student Learning Outcomes for

the QEP:

I. Competency 4: Engage in Practice-informed Research and Research-Informed Practice

a. Use practice experience and theory to inform scientific inquiry and research

b. Apply critical thinking to engage in analysis of quantitative and qualitative

research methods and research findings; and

c. Use and translate research evidence to inform and improve practice, policy, and

service delivery.

II. Competency 9: Evaluate practice with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and

Communities.

a. Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-

environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in the

evaluation of outcomes;

b. Critically analyze, monitor, and evaluate intervention and program processes

and outcomes;

c. Apply evaluation findings to improve practice effectiveness at the micro,

mezzo, and macro levels.

The QEP assessment measures reinforce the standards of these two accrediting bodies and provide the

foundation upon which the SLOs for the QEP and ENG 121/122 were developed.

While the standards differ by discipline, the common features led to the development of QEP

SLOs appropriate for all disciplines. Furthermore, in coordination with the needs of Saint Leo University

students and employers, we have aligned QEP SLOs with current best practices advocated by the

National College of Teachers of English (NCTE), Writing Program Administrators (WPA), Conference

on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), the American Association of Colleges and


15

Universities (AACU), and the Society for Technical Communication. The redesign of ENG 121 and 122

was approved by the University Curriculum Committee in December 2020 and aligns SLOs with the

QEP topic, so that Saint Leo students are taught the skills they need to transfer what they have learned in

the classroom into their discipline and then into the workplace. As Hall (2006) notes, Freshman

Composition needs to design what he calls a “Unified Writing Curriculum’. . . that progresses from the

entering freshman right through the graduating senior” (p.6) or from composition courses through

discipline-specific courses. In the focus on Writing in the Disciplines by the NCTE (2008) and their

writing brief entitled, “Writing Now,” the authors highlight that “writing is holistic” (p.3). English is a

discipline in which scaffolding enables teachers to connect student learning with competencies. Each

identified activity in the QEP is part of a final project so that there are no disparate components. Instead

of teaching in isolation, assignments connect with each other—are a part of the whole—so that skills are

scaffolded with each writing assignment.

An examination of the SLOS of ENG 121 and ENG 122 revealed that Critical Thinking skills

were the lowest scoring, leading to a redesign of these courses to address this concern. The redesign of

ENG 121 and ENG 122 was to align with the above-mentioned accrediting bodies and national

organizations, as well as student needs. To be successful in the workplace, an evaluation of the key

assignment with designated rubrics in the old ENG 121—Academic Writing I and ENG 122—Academic

Writing II was conducted. Critical Thinking skills were the lowest of the Student Learning Outcomes

(SLOs). Critical thinking is developed when writing is based on reading, writing, and thinking through

writing. Students develop thinking through writing as reflected, for example, in High Impact Practices

such as low stakes writing assignments and metacognitive thinking in writing. When students read, they

are processing information, determining key points, and synthesizing material to comprehend. In order to

write, students need to scaffold their writing: brainstorm an idea, develop a question, form a response,

and communicate that answer in writing. They also need to consider to whom they are writing—their

audience. Throughout the writing process, students learn to synthesize material, a skill that is taught and

developed with practice. Based on the new ENG 121/122 course syllabi (Appendices D and E), this SLO

will be taught as a process of inquiry, as students learn to read, understand rhetoric, write from different

perspectives, reflect on the audience, ask questions, develop their own research question, perform

research, and synthesize what they have learned into their student writing activities and projects. These

two English University Explorations (UE) core courses for every Saint Leo student are essential in the

beginning writing process, as students learn to write, which lays the foundational practices in WID.

Based on the data from Saint Leo, alongside information from professional organizations and the

national accrediting bodies in Computer Science and Social Work, the QEP Leadership Team met in

June 2020 to discuss WAC and WID as two potential areas for the focus of the QEP. The ENG 121/122

data for the last five years was compiled and assessed in Spring 2020 and the ranking of the skills was

developed. This data was then analyzed (Tables 8-12) by the Chair of Language Studies and the Arts and


16

the faculty: assessment data, research, and feedback from constituencies. Critical thinking skills ranked

the lowest in SLOs. WID would enable the Language Studies and the Arts department, in which ENG

121/122 is housed, to assist in aligning SLOs in these foundation courses with the QEP and national

bodies in the field of writing: CCCC, NCTE, WPA, AACU, and the Society of Technical

Communication. According to the WAC Clearinghouse, WAC “recognizes and supports the use of

writing in any and every way and in every and any course offered at a learning institution” (WAC

Clearinghouse, 2020a, para 1). For Saint Leo, WID was chosen because the QEP is an introduction to

WAC through WID. WID enables us to introduce, refine, revise, and build a viable, sustainable program

across all modalities in all disciplines. Moreover, Saint Leo’s revision of ENG 121/122 with a focus on

rhetoric, genres, audience, persuasion and assignment of writing tasks for professionals in the field, is,

by definition, WID (WAC Clearinghouse, 2020d). Saint Leo’s Faculty Development Day in August

2019 initiated a strong interest from faculty about writing in the discipline. Writing in the Disciplines

was selected as the QEP in June 2020. Figure 3 below provides a roadmap of key milestones in the QEP.

Figure 3. QEP Timeline.

The Deans of the School of Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Data Science,

where Computer Science is housed, and College of Education and Social Services, where Social Work is

housed, were approached as potential participants in the QEP in June 2020. Both department chairs

agreed to participate and collaborated with their department faculty as well. The five Deans—Arts and

Sciences; Business; School of Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Data Science; Education

and Social Services; and the Health Professions also supported the QEP WID initiative. Upon


17

confirmation of their participation, focus groups in Computer Science and Social Work were conducted

in December 2020 to survey faculty perspectives on their students’ writing (Appendix H).

In Computer Science, three faculty responded to the focus group survey. In Social Work, seven

faculty met with the QEP Director to discuss the focus group survey. As the QEP is implemented in

these disciplines, we will be looking for increasing buy-in from faculty, with a 25% increase per year.

The results indicate that faculty in both departments agree that writing in the discipline is often at the

basic level because students do not currently transfer skills learned from ENG 121/122 to their courses in

the discipline itself. However, the faculty agree that the revision of ENG 121/122 looks very promising

so that students can learn the basic skills of writing for different audiences, write persuasively, and use

rhetoric as the focus rather than literature.

In Computer Science, the focus group respondents identified students’ confidence in writing

skills learned as 6-7 out of 10. As such, suggestions to improve writing included “assign additional

writing”, “work with students and provide individualized instruction”, and “… more emphasis on writing

in the basic English courses….”. The faculty highlight the need for further writing in the discipline and

align with the redesign of ENG 121/122 in University Explorations. This acknowledgement of the

increased focus on writing skills is important in ensuring the participation of Computer Science faculty

in the development of WID guides, LibGuides, and instructional videos when implementation begins in

Summer 2022.

In Social Work, faculty highlighted that often the skills their students learned in ENG 121/122

seemed to be different from the skills needed in the Social Work discipline. For this faculty group,

students lacked skills in finding their academic voice in written assignments. Moreover, writing topics

identified by the faculty as necessary for the field of social work were social justice, current legislation,

and policies—excluded in the previous ENG 121/122 master syllabi. For the Social Work faculty, ENG

121/122 should introduce the foundations of writing for different audiences so that students in their

discipline could then further develop this skill in the discipline writing activities. At the same time,

Social Work faculty highlighted the need to have discussions in ENG 121/122 about inclusive language

in WID—an important factor in writing in Social Work, whether for fundraising, writing about cases, or

writing a policy paper.

Official Design Phase

Early in 2020, Dr. Diane Ball, the SACSCOC Liaison for Saint Leo, and Dr. Mary Spoto, the

Vice President for Academic Affairs, invited specific faculty, staff, and administrators, to participate in

the first meeting. Here, the QEP’s official design phase began. In early summer 2020, after reviewing

Faculty Development presentations and interests from the August 2019 Faculty Development Day

activities, the ENG 121/122 assessment data, the NSA/DHS and CSWE accreditation standards, as well

as various professional organizations in the discipline of writing, the QEP Leadership Team selected


18

Writing in the Disciplines and READ! WRITE! transform! became the motto. The QEP Director then

assigned specific tasks to team members by section: Assessment, Budget, Editing, Executive Summary,

Literature Review, Professional Development, and Purpose and Goals.

Assessment Measures Designed: The assessment team met throughout the summer of 2020 to

design assessment measures for the QEP. ENG 121/122 courses were redesigned and the new draft QEP

SLOs embedded in the syllabi in Spring 2021 pilot. In summer 2020, the assessment team reached out to

Dr. Ebony Pérez, Chair of Undergraduate Social Work, to begin discussions of assessment needs in the

Social Work discipline. The accreditation standards for Computer Science and Social Work were

reviewed to ensure that the QEP SLOs also supported these standards.

Budget for QEP: The budget team met to discuss budget needs for the QEP as well as design a

plan for the budget narrative. The budget team sent Saint Leo University’s Chief Financial Officer

(CFO) the budget proposal for approval.

Research and Development: The Literature Review team compiled the literature and prepared

a literature review based on best practices in the writing in the discipline initiative. The Professional

Development team met to discuss best practices in the discipline and to explore, with the assistance of

the Director of the CTLE, best practices for faculty training.

Students as Stakeholders: Undergraduate students in the following programs/courses are being

piloted for the QEP: READ! WRITE! transform! Students at all locations are included: University

Campus, Education Centers, Worldwide Online.

QEP Course Redesign for English, Computer Science, and Social Work:

Phase I—English Foundations Courses:

● ENG 121: Academic Writing I: Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric

● ENG 122: Academic Writing II: Research and Writing

Phase II—Computer Science Program

● COM 203: Computer Information Systems

● COM 320: Systems Analysis and Design

● COM 497: Computer Science Capstone

Phase II—Social Work Program

● SWK 327: Social Work Research Methods

● SWK 344: Technology and Social Work

● SWK 421: Methods of Social Work Practice III

The other undergraduate disciplines at Saint Leo University will be added in Phases three to five.

Student Profile

According to the University Facts: Headcounts Fall-1 2016 to Fall 1-2020 document from the

Office of Assessment and Institutional Research at Saint Leo, in Fall 2020, Saint Leo University had


19

9,832 students, of which 1,343 were enrolled at Education Centers, 2,246 at University Campus, and

3,256 at Worldwide Online, with the remainder enrolled in Graduate programs (Saint Leo University,

2019; Saint Leo University, 2020e). The Fast Fact Guides for Education Centers, University Campus,

and Worldwide Online reveals a significant difference between student populations taking courses at

these locations (Table 3). While Education Centers and Worldwide Online have similar demographics,

University Campus is predominantly younger than 25 years of age. Our QEP topic, WID, enables us to

implement the QEP across the pilot disciplines of Computer Science, English, and Social Work. The

other undergraduate disciplines will be added in phases. However, any redesign of courses at Saint Leo

must consider the populations we serve and the modalities in which they are enrolled. As a result, the

redesign of ENG 121/122 incorporated rhetoric as the focus to prepare students across disciplines, age

groups, and modalities, so that they are better prepared to enter the workforce or to develop skills

currently being used in the workforce.

Table 3

Student Enrollment by Age

Location Age Groups

Younger than 25

25-34 35-44 45 or older

Education Centers 22.0% 37.9% 23.3% 16.8% University Campus 95.5% 4.5%* Worldwide Online 20.4% 41.5% 24.5% 13.6%

*Please note that data collected for University Campus was designated differently by age group. The percentage represents the compilation of age groups listed above.

At Saint Leo University, the ethnic backgrounds of our students vary as well, including by

location, as indicated in Table 4.

Table 4

Ethnicity of Students

Location Ethnicity American

Indian—Alaskan Native

Asian Black or African American

Hispanics of any race

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Not specified in records

Two or more races

White, non-Hispanic

Education Centers

0.4% 1.5% 33.7% 10.2% 0.2% 29.2% 0.9% 23.8%

University Campus

0.4% 2.7% 19.9% 22.5% --- 13.4% 1.6% 39.5%

Worldwide Online

0.4% 1.6% 34.9% 14.5% 0.1% 16.5% 1.1% 31.0%

The ethnic backgrounds of our student population suggest that a list of readings and assignments

is needed that promote inclusion and diversity throughout the ENG 121/122 courses. Student resources

will be developed by various faculty in the summer of 2020 for ENG 121/122. Instructional videos for


20

faculty and students will be developed that represent the ethnic diversity of our university and ensure

interdisciplinary, intercultural, and generational voices are represented.

Redesign of ENG 121/122

The ENG 121/122 redesign occurred over the course of 2020, alongside the choosing of a QEP

topic. The following (Table 5) provides a timeline of milestones achieved in ENG 121/122 in the

development of the QEP.

Table 5

Milestones achieved for ENG 121/122

ACTIVITY START END NOTES

Milestone 1: Assessment—ENG 121/122

Jan 2020 Apr 2020 ENG 121/122 Assessment was conducted by Chair of UE Advisory Council and reported to the Chair, Language Studies and the Arts.

Milestone 2: ENG 121/122 Course Redesign

Jun 2020 Dec 2020

Course redesign was in consultation with English faculty throughout the summer and then presented to the faculty in October 2020 for discussion. Revisions were then made to the master syllabus. Approved by department and college and submitted to University Curriculum Committee.

Milestone 3: ENG 121/122 Redesign Approved

Dec 2020 Dec 2020 ENG 121/122 approved by University Curriculum Committee.

Milestone 4: Faculty Focus Groups

Dec 2020 Dec 2020 Focus groups in Computer Science and Social work were conducted. Results were compiled and reported in QEP and aligned with ENG 121/122 redesign.

Milestone 5: ENG 121/122 redesign completed for rollout in Fall 2021

Dec 2020 Jan 2021 ENG 121/122 redesign completed for rollout in Fall 2021 at Education Centers, University Campus, and Worldwide Online.

Milestone 6: Career Services

Jan 2021 Jan 2021 Identifying major stakeholders in workforce at Saint Leo University to align with ENG 121/122 skills.

An examination of the English 121/122 curriculum, in the context of the career and disciplinary

goals of students, as well as demographics, reveals the need for professional and workplace relevancy. In

January 2020, the Chair of the UE Advisory Council began the assessment of ENG 121/122 courses in

Language Studies and the Arts. Then, the Chair of the Department of Language Studies and the Arts, in

collaboration with the English faculty, reviewed the data from a Key Assignment in Chalk and Wire in

ENG 121/122 to determine an action plan to address the lowest scored SLO. A review of the master

syllabi revealed that they were not aligned with best practices in the field of writing. Our master syllabi

were focused on critical thinking and communicating clearly, but within a literary focus. This particular

focus, when compared with the student populations at Education Centers and Worldwide Online, who

were primarily in the workforce and did not see the correlation between literary skills and their


21

disciplines, nor their workforce skills, highlighted a need to develop writing skills in the context of

different disciplinary discourse communities. The age of the students in these two modalities was much

higher than the age at University Campus, where 95% of the students were younger than 25 years of age.

In courses at Education Centers and Worldwide Online, students were often in the workforce and

returning to university to complete a degree. They wanted a degree to receive a promotion or develop

their skills in the discipline. A redesign was needed to be more inclusive of these students within the

overall Saint Leo community and prepare them for the workforce in which they were already a part.

However, for the 95% younger than 25 age group of University Campus students, many are trying to

enter the workforce in their disciplines for the first time and need guidance and resources.

At Saint Leo, Career Services plays an important role in connecting our students with our

community stakeholders through resources and opportunities for employment. Our workforce partners

work in tandem with Career Services and recruit from Saint Leo’s database for students registered

through Handshake—our Saint Leo portal for work opportunities and resources. The Executive Director

of Career Services for Saint Leo University noted that in addition to academic excellence, all employers

seek transferable skills in their top candidates. Career Services notes that the top eight nationally

recognized transferable skills (competencies) are critical thinking, communication, leadership,

teamwork, technology, work ethic, global fluency and career management. Saint Leo’s Career Services

has developed career readiness programming, which aligns all eight competencies with the Saint Leo

Core Values to offer our students a competitive edge in the job market. Saint Leo’s top five industries

recruiting students and alumni are Healthcare, Education, Non-Profit, Government/Law Enforcement

and Technology. Saint Leo recruiting partners have made over 20,000 job and internships available to

the Saint Leo community annually (S. Mickey, personal communication, January 04, 2021.)

The QEP and its focus on WID motivated the course redesign for ENG 121/122 to be more

inclusive of other disciplinary communities at Saint Leo. To begin the process, the revised ENG

121/122 course syllabi included QEP SLOs and course content. The data revealed that the course SLO

for critical thinking was the lowest of the five measured for UE (Tables 8-12) and yet is an important

“power skill”.

The data was assessed based on the rubrics and scoring in ENG 121/122. The assessments for

these SLOs were formative in nature; however, there was only one key assignment in ENG 121 and one

in ENG 122. In the revised ENG 121 master course syllabus, three key assignments will be assessed:

Multimodal Assignment, Rhetorical Analysis assignment, and a Final Reflection. These assessments will

have a QEP WID rubric, which is currently under development. In the revised ENG 122 master course

syllabus, three key assignments will be assessed: Annotated Bibliography, Literature Review, and

Research Paper. The Research Paper is the culminating assignment that includes the transferable writing

skills learned in ENG 121 and applies those skills with those learned in ENG 122 in preparation for

courses in the discipline. A final reflection will be added and measured as a transferable skill between


22

ENG 122 and the first course identified in the discipline. The final reflection will be added to each

course identified for the QEP in the major and assessed annually to determine the transferability of

writing skills in the discipline. These assessments will be tracked throughout Computer Science and

Social Work and in the course determined by the departments in the remaining undergraduate

disciplines.

Historically, faculty in English have taught ENG 121/122 more within the confines of literary

analysis, often assigning papers that analyze literary works rather than providing prompts that align with

the needs of other disciplines. Students, however, could not connect the terminology of English with

their discipline. As a result, students completed assignments within the confines of ENG 121/122, but

the disconnect between what they learned in English and how to apply it to their discipline was evident.

In our pilot in COM 203 in fall 2020, for example, students who were in the previous ENG 121/122 were

unable to write for their discipline-specific audience because of a lack of sequence between courses.

When the professor asked them to complete an annotated bibliography and a research project, students

were upset, even angry, and commented during office hours that they did not understand why they had to

write a research proposal and complete a research project. However, by the end of the course, students

were recognizing the importance of these assignments (see Figure 4 below).

Figure 4. Student Testimonial

The QEP enhances courses and solves the dilemma by teaching students WID terminology and

focusing on transferring student learning throughout a student’s discipline by teaching them concepts,

terminology, audience, rhetorical analysis and practicing these in multimodal assignments in the


23

discipline. Furthermore, the transferability of writing skills to the discipline will no longer halt at the

successful completion of ENG 122 but begin in ENG 121, transfer to 122 and then be reinforced in the

disciplines with guidelines and artifacts developed. The artifacts will be assessed with the same QEP

WID and Reflection rubrics used in ENG 121/122. Moreover, the final reflection assessed in ENG 121

and ENG 122 will be added to the discipline specific courses identified in all undergraduate disciplines.

Upon graduation, students will then transfer what they have learned, revised, and practiced in their

programs to their workplace. Instead of a disconnect between a student’s freshman to senior year, a

bridge is built that links the graduating student to the employer to develop a discourse community and all

it connotes, as indicated by (Swales, 2016). The redesign of ENG 121/122 is the beginning of a four-year

process of WID and the QEP.

Before the ENG 121/122 course redesign, the skills were limited to one assignment for each

skill. In the new model for ENG 122, the student completes a research project and its scaffolded pieces:

research question, research proposal, literature review, annotated bibliography, peer review editing, and

research paper. The course description for ENG 121 is as follows: “The techniques of effective writing,

logical thinking, and intelligent reading, with special emphasis on expository writing. To ensure

competence in oral communications, a speech component is included” (Saint Leo University, 2020d, sect

2). In the new model for ENG 121, students are taught to examine genres--a text, a work of art, or a

performance--and the different ways they are constructed, using rhetoric as the foundation. The intended

audience, the context, the purpose, and what this information reveals is important in writing about a text,

a work of art, or a performance.

With the revised curriculum for ENG 121/122, a QEP WID rubric and student learning activities

will be designed to engage students and guide them in the learning process. Data will be collected and

interpreted by the Department Chair/QEP Director, the QEP Assistant, the Associate Chair, and the UE

Advisory Council Chair, in collaboration with the QEP assessment team and the AWALs for each

discipline. Student learning outcomes will be evaluated annually, using writing samples collected from

the courses that would be separate from any assessments of transferable skills (improved performance in

research proposals and WID) in the two disciplines that are identified in the QEP.

In essence, we designed the QEP to assist students in learning rhetoric, critical thinking, and

effective writing skills and applying them in a WID framework. The QEP project goals and SLOs align

with what employers have identified as a need in the workplace. The QEP introduces all students to

basic writing skills in the disciplines, while piloting specific discipline approaches in two academic

programs: Computer Science and Social Work. The piloted programs have identified courses throughout

the student’s progress toward graduation. The QEP will involve WID training, development, syllabus

modification, and implementation in at least one course in each undergraduate program.


24

Strategies to Accomplish WID Objectives

At Saint Leo University, discipline-specific writing cannot be learned independently of

academic writing. Subject instructors need to assume responsibility of teaching writing so that writing is

an ongoing, transferable skill to the workplace. The implementation of WID initiatives is designed to

bridge the gap between ENG 121/122 skills learned and the disciplines with the following key strategies

implemented as part of the QEP:

1. Appointing Academic Writing and Assessment Leads (AWALs) from the faculty to be

responsible for the development and assessment of program specific WID initiatives within

all academic programs identified and to assist faculty in the disciplines.

2. Establish a virtual WID Resource Center for faculty and students for the QEP with faculty

contributing from all disciplines. Program-specific writing guides, informed by best

practices and designed by program faculty, will be posted and maintained on the CTLE

website for faculty and in course shells for students.

3. Developing LibGuides on Critical thinking and WID.

4. Using Writing assistants to assist students in WID-specific courses to ensure consistent

application of WID guidelines and the writing process.

5. Professional development to train faculty in WID best practices.

6. Training Student Writing and Academic Team (SWAT) to aid students in ENG 121/122 as

well as other disciplines.

The Writing assistant is an adjunct faculty member in English in the Department of Language

Studies and the Arts and reports to the Director of the QEP. For the first year of implementation, the

Writing Assistant will assist students in QEP identified courses with their writing assignments.

Thereafter, students will be sought to become members of the Student Writing Academic Team

(SWAT). They will be embedded in classes in the disciplines in all three locations: University Campus,

Education Centers, and Worldwide Online. These SWAT members must have received no less than a B

in ENG 121/122.

Student Learning Outcomes

With the QEP purpose statement and objectives, the Assessment Team developed SLOs to

measure student learning and evaluate the success of the QEP. The QEP also builds on our Communicate

Clearly and Critical Thinking skills addressed in the University Explorations (UE) outcomes. Institution-

wide assessment of these outcomes has revealed weaknesses in student writing, and the QEP will

improve student skills in this area. After review of current outcomes data, the Assessment Team

developed the following outcomes:

Student Learning Outcomes

1. Students will be able to apply the principles of effective writing. (EFW)


25

i. Students will be able to apply the foundational skills required in writing.

(EFW1.1)

ii. Students will be able to incorporate audience into their analysis. (EFW1.2)

iii. Students will perceive that their writing skills have improved. (EFW1.3)

2. Students will be able to write in various formal and informal contexts appropriate

to their discipline and adhere to the conventions of effective writing in the

discipline. (FIC).

i. Students will apply effective writing skills within their discipline. (FIC2.1)

ii. Students will create effective artifacts within their discipline. (FIC2.2).

3. Students will be able to identify the benefits of writing as a transferable skill for the

workplace. (TSW).

i. Students will be able to identify the benefits of writing in their discipline.

(TSW3.1)

ii. Students will value writing as applied to a discipline. (TSW3.2)

Literature Review

Colorado State University’s Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) resources website defines

WID as enabling students to “practice with the writing conventions of a discipline and to help them

[gain] familiarity and fluency with specific genres and formats typical of a given discipline” (WAC

Clearninghouse, 2020a). Moreover, WID provides students with the opportunity to learn the following:

Integrate and analyze course content

Provide a field-WID context to course material

Practice thinking skills relevant to analyses in the discipline

Practice professional communication

Prepare for a range of careers in the field

Writing skills within a discipline are developed over a student’s academic career and then

transferred to the workplace upon employment as “power skills” necessary for the development and

advancement of employees. ENG 121/122 at Saint Leo was based on traditional English course content,

but this lens does not support our students’ needs as much as the focus on rhetoric--hence the importance

of the QEP at Saint Leo on WID and on rhetoric--one that that is much more inclusive of our diverse

student population and disciplines offered.

Crank (2012) identifies a common set of concepts between high school and college:

“genre/format, sources, argument, process, audience, and voice.” High schools have introduced these

terms through the introduction of more non-fiction readings into the curriculum since the introduction of


26

Common Core. Saint Leo’s revised ENG 121/122 reviews the terminology, expands on its uses, focuses

on rhetoric and writing for different audiences, and assesses student learning in WID. To be fully

implemented in Fall 2021, ENG 121/122 develops a WID discourse community—faculty-to-faculty,

faculty-to-students, students-students—that improves student learning in the disciplines and builds

discourse communities in which to share best practices and resources. A recent Hart Research Associates

(2015a) report indicates that 82% of employers rated the ability to effectively communicate in writing as

important. Yet only 56% of college graduates responded that they felt well prepared to communicate in

writing effectively. Discourse communities would provide a place to discuss best practices, to share in

the learning process, and to discuss improvements so that all stakeholders benefit.

“Power Skills” and Transferable Writing Skills Demanded by Employers

The term “transferable writing skills” is difficult to define and assess. As Snead (2011)

highlights, transfer may be impeded in different ways, but that does not mean it does not occur. As

Bergmann and Zepernick (2007) note, student perception is very different between English and other

disciplines. Students tend to see writing done in high school and in college composition courses as

independent from the writing in their disciplines. Writing conventions used and discipline-specific

terminology are not learned in composition courses, but in discipline courses (Bergmann & Zepernick,

2007). Jarrat, et al., (2009), argue that student disposition is another obstacle to the assessment of

transferability and needs to include “helping students prepare to translate discourses about writing as

they move from one academic site to another” (p. 46). For Saint Leo University’s QEP, the transfer of

writing skills begins in ENG 121/122 from learning general foundation concepts, terminology, and

practicing these skills in writing assignments so that students can identify “their tacit knowledge as well

as gaps in that knowledge,” learn from the decisions they will make as they revise and apply what they

have learned in courses in their discipline (WAC Clearinghouse, 2020b, para. 6). Moreover, at Saint Leo,

the foundation skills taught in ENG 121/122 will be reinforced and assessed throughout the disciplines

of Computer Science and Social Work and in one course to be identified by the remaining disciplines.

The transformation, however, is not complete when students graduate. In fact, clear

communication skills are critical for employees and can convey a sense of mastery, credibility,

influence, professionalism, and clear communication (Business World, 2017; Condrad, 2020). In

addition to these broad skills, employers often demand specific knowledge and ways of writing suited to

their unique professions (Career Addict, 2016). For example, computer science careers might require the

writing of technical manuals for customers or end users while social work professionals might be writing

progress notes or even reports for court (Monroe, 2003). Thus, both general communication skills and

discipline-specific expertise are necessary for post-baccalaureate success. Often, faculty members who

struggle with thinking themselves as capable writing instructors in a general sense will benefit from

thinking about writing instruction through the lens of their discipline’s expectations. In fact, a report by

(Hart Research Associates, 2015a) found that roughly 80% of employers would more likely consider


27

graduates who had taken courses that required major writing assignments. This is particularly true for

social work where courses in Technology and Documentation require students to learn how to access

electronic documents and software programs to engage clients and accurately record assessment

information gleaned from online tele-health meetings, or on-ground sessions where communication has

to be efficiently and effectively translated to client databases. As Taffe (1997) notes, in computer

science, writing takes many forms: writing reports for communication, writing to explain the results of

research, and writing to clarify, but writing in computer science is also working on research projects,

compiling data, and interpreting it for key stakeholders to understand security concerns, infrastructure

scope, or data management in all fields, from healthcare professions to hospitality.

To write effectively in their discipline, students must have foundational development in the

“power skills” of critical thinking, problem solving, communication, leadership, adaptability, and

emotional intelligence. They also must be able to apply these specific skills to their disciplines. Sixty

percent of college students believe they need to have both broad and specific skills, which is on par to

what employers believe (Hart Research Associates, 2015b). There were, however, stark differences with

respect to how students and employers weighted the mastery of the other “power skills.” Ninety-six

percent of employers thought that regardless of field, students should be able to solve problems with

people who have views that are different from their own.

Moreover, graduates and employers differed in their perspectives on the skills students

developed in college. For example, 65% of students felt they were prepared in written communication,

while only 27% of employers agreed (Hart Research Associates, 2015a). The same was seen across

critical thinking, where 66% of students reported they were prepared and only 26% of employers felt the

same (Hart Research Associates, 2015a). Unfortunately, this also played out in ethical decision making

(62% students vs. 30% employers) and teamwork (64% students vs. 37% employers) (Hart Research

Associates, 2015a). Overall, 60% of employers felt improvements were needed in colleges and

universities to better prepare students (Hart Research Associates, 2015a).

Saint Leo University performed a study in 2015 and found similar results (Lucio & Nelson,

2015). In fact, one employer noted that students’ degrees enable them to open “the door, but then it

comes down to [their] soft skills that will get [them] the job.” When employers were asked to identify

which skills they prioritized in candidates beyond specific technical skills, they identified critical

thinking, ethics, decision-making, and the ability to work on a team. While employers agreed these

skills were important, when asked to define how they looked in their application within their industry it

was different from what was being taught. For example, critical thinking is often applied in courses

where students are given a problem or idea and are asked to apply specific critical thinking skills. This

was contrasted with employers who noted they expected graduates to be able to identify the problem,

understand the impacts of their decisions up and down the line, and present solutions that would best


28

serve both the company and their customers. This contrast illustrates the need for both a general

understanding of “power skills” and of their discipline-specific applications (Lucio & Nelson, 2015).

Best Practices

Institutions committed to offering the best possible education to their students must recognize

the writing crisis as an opportunity for reflection and carefully examine the best practices available. The

first step in reflecting on current practices and analyzing the fit of best practices is acknowledging key

players (their roles and responsibilities), the expected student learning outcomes (SLOs), and the need

for disciplinary writing. Before addressing classroom best practices, it is necessary to focus on faculty

understanding of WID’s purpose, scope, and importance. The faculty's understanding of how to plan and

design their instruction within a WID framework is critical for a successful program. Considering that

most of the faculty teaching in the disciplines may not have had formal education in teaching WID, it

would be wise to raise awareness of WID's focus and purpose and how it applies to the specific

disciplines.

Faculty from all disciplines should have access to professional development opportunities

designed to enhance students' writing (National Commission on Writing, 2003). Faculty need to be

trained in the QEP’s WID scope and how to develop WID assignments rather than teaching writing in

their disciplines in the same way they were taught, if at all. The phenomenon of teaching in the same

way one was taught has been widely discussed in education circles and is referred to as "apprenticeship

of observation." The term "apprenticeship of observation," coined by Lortie (2002) refers to the

thousands of hours educators-to-be have spent observing and making conclusions as schoolchildren by

the time they begin to teach. Lortie argues that this exposure is responsible for the many pre-conceptions

educators-to-be hold about teaching and bring to the classroom. Carter (2007) offers two important

observations germane to this issue: (1) that most faculty learn to write as a generalized practice, which

links to the "apprenticeship of observation," and (2) the disconnection between writing and disciplinary

knowledge or knowing in the disciplines. This disconnection is heightened by faculty's perception of

writing as a generic process learned outside the specific discipline (composition courses) and having to

sacrifice specialized discipline time into a non-discipline matter such as writing. To end this

apprenticeship cycle and its contributions to the writing crisis, Carter (2007) suggests viewing

disciplines as ways of doing that connect to ways of knowing and writing in various fields. For Crank

(2012), discourse communities between faculty-student, student-student, and faculty-faculty, once

developed, become places to communicate, to engage in learning and end the static content knowledge

identified in Carter (2007).

Russell (2002, p.6), when discussing the "triumph of specialization" within the historical context

of how WID has evolved, states that writing was considered a generalizable skill, and academia held a

universal standard. Writing is a complex process that responds to a "community's discourse" rather than

a "form of talking" (p.6). Consequently, supporting students' writing as they enter specific discourse


29

communities to communicate disciplinary knowledge in writing strengthens students' opportunities to

become better writers (and more desirable candidates in the job market). Writing is a complex process

that responds to a "community's discourse" rather than a "form of talking" (p.6). Consequently,

supporting students' writing as they enter into specific discourse communities to communicate

disciplinary knowledge in writing strengthens students' opportunities to become better writers (and more

desirable candidates in the job market). Students need to be introduced to actual discipline documents

(e.g., lab reports, proposals, abstracts). These documents should provide knowledge about the discipline

and be good models for writing in the target discipline. Pittenger, et al., (2006), investigated the

development of business students' writing skills and their assessment, and recommend stressing the

importance of the writing skill in their discipline by using real documents to illustrate what constitutes

good writing. Likewise, Nesi (2012) claims that "Many students never see a proficient example of the

genres they attempt to produce” (pp. 55-57). These claims lead us to consider the importance of writing

tasks that focus on professional communication, support students' development of specific types of

lexical inventories while promoting critical thinking and providing a context for disciplinary courses’

writing activities.

Writing tasks can be presented in different formats: text, audio, videos, computer animations

(U.S. Department of Education, 2011). These formats should be aligned with the writing assignment and

the specific discipline, paying close attention to coherence and alignment between SLOs, assignments,

and WIDs' program goals. As Young (2006, p. 5) puts it, "effective writing assignments are not 'add-ons'

to fulfill a writing requirement or to generate 20 percent of a final grade." Instead, these writing

assignments within a discipline should result from a thoroughly and carefully crafted plan where

consistency and articulation between the program's vision, discipline standards, goals, and SLOs work

seamlessly. Gardner (2008) indicates that creating assignments is engaging in a "form of writing" and

that teachers need to answer questions about these assignments before designing them (p. xi). Depending

on these responses, teachers may have to calibrate their design paying particular attention to essential

characteristics of effective writing assignments (e.g., content and scope, discipline needs, organization

and development, target audience) while balancing writing choices conducive to students' engagement

(as opposed to a complete teacher-center or teacher-driven task). This student-centered approach is

consistent with the applied type of learning employers seek. For instance, Hart Research Associates

(2015b) revealed that employers are more likely to consider hiring graduates with applied learning or

project-based learning experience. About 81% of the surveyed employers favored hiring graduates with

multiple courses involving significant writing (Hart Research Associates, 2015b). For Saint Leo, the

WID focus of the QEP and the artifacts identified in the disciplines are designed to address this employer

need.


30

Summary

The crucial need for academic writing skills in today's job market is unquestionable. Aligning

SLOs within the writing requirements demanded for career readiness and professional success is a

necessity. Maintaining currency with employers' demands, ensuring programs provide discipline

specific writing assignments, reviewing institutional practices in the writing programs, and adapting to

deliver the excellence promise is a collective task. Finally, but not least importantly, administrators

leading academic change and policy, faculty implementing these program changes, and students as

beneficiaries of programs' enhancement need to work together and create synergy, so the combined

effect of these changes is greater than the sum of their parts.

Actions and Timelines

Saint Leo University’s QEP topic—READ! WRITE! transform! —is one that will begin in three

different departments, two different colleges and one school across the university: Language Studies and

the Arts, College of Arts and Sciences; Computer and Information Science, School of Computing,

Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Data Science; and Social Work, College of Education and Social

Services. In Phase One, the WID initiatives will begin in ENG 121/122 in the first year of

implementation. The assessment data collected in Fall 2021-Spring 2022 for ENG 121 and Spring 2022-

Fall 2022 for ENG 122 will allow for the integration and assessment of WID initiatives at the beginning

of the students’ program as a freshman at Saint Leo University. Required, as part of University

Explorations, the institution’s general education program for all students at Saint Leo, ENG 121/122 will

be introduced to familiarize them with the QEP and WID before implementation in Computer Science

and Social Work. These two departments will begin implementation in Fall 2022-Spring 2023.

Thereafter, the remaining undergraduate disciplines will be added in Phases Three to Five. Table 6

shows the timeline and actions we plan to implement for ENG 121/122 and the pilot programs

(Computer Science and Social Work) for all phases. Table 7 shows the phases, actions, and

responsibilities for the remaining programs. We based the projected implementation dates on

information received from the Chairs in the respective colleges/schools involved: Arts and Sciences;

Business; Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Data Science; Education and Social

Services; and the Health Professions. The QEP will move through four more phases thereafter. Students

in Computer Science and Social Work will be tracked throughout their career at Saint Leo University.

The first year of the QEP will be dedicated to ENG 121/122, research, development of proposed

assessment instruments, WID guides for introduction to the major courses in Computer Science and

Social Work and training the initial faculty members in Computer Science and Social Work who will

participate and a writing assistant, with the help of the AWALs—Academic Writing and Assessment

Leads.


31

An important part of the first year will begin in Phase One and include complete implementation

and assessment of WID initiatives in the Computer Science and Social Work courses identified for Phase

Two and thereafter. The Dean of the School of Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Data

Science, and the Dean of Education and Social Services, as well as the Chairs of Computer Science and

Social Work supported the decision to pilot in Computer Science and Social Work. Phases Three to Five

will be implemented in the remaining disciplines and include at least one course in the major identified

by the faculty for each major and approved by the chairs and deans.

QEP Implementation Timeline, Actions, and Phases

Table 6 shows the overall QEP timeline, actions we plan to implement and the phases of

development. Saint Leo University will roll out WID initiatives to the undergraduate academic programs

in phases. The QEP Director, a program-specific WID Lead, and the QEP Writing Assistant will lead

each phase. Comprised of multiple academic programs, each phase will involve WID training,

development, syllabus modification, and implementation in at least one course in each program. By the

completion of the QEP, all bachelor’s degree programs will have developed program-specific WID

guidelines and identified WID artifacts and implemented them in at least one course. The following table

outlines the implementation schedule for each of the phases following Phase One and Two (ENG

121/122; Computer Science and Social Work). This phase will lay the groundwork for Phases Three,

Four, and Five, which will commence with the implementation of WID Phase One initiatives.

Table 6

QEP Implementation University Explorations (Phase 1) & Pilot Programs (Phase 2) Timeline

Semester Action Results Responsibility

PRE-IMPLEMENTATION

Fall 2020 Introduce QEP objectives and goals to students, faculty, and staff.

Connect faculty and students to writing in the disciplines to QEP objectives and goals.

QEP Director

Spring 2021 Launch QEP Marketing Campaign

Create excitement and support University-wide for QEP initiatives

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, QEP Leadership Team, Marketing Team, Student Affairs

PHASE 1: UNIVERSITY EXPLORATIONS (ENG 121, ENG 122)

Summer 2021 Design and develop WID rubric and Reflection rubric for ENG 121/122 and begin first phase of

Do the SLOs and the rubrics match for ENG 121/122? If they do not, revise and prepare

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, Writing Faculty, Marketing, AWALs, CTLE, Writing Assistant


32

WID online resources in collaboration with Writing faculty, (Library), Center for Academic Vision and Excellence (C.A.V.E.), and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (C.T.L.E.) Develop training for ENG 121/122 faculty on WID.

for implementation in ENG 121/122.

Develop a webpage in collaboration with CTLE for online faculty resources.

Update current LibGuides on writing and develop WID LibGuides for students.

PHASE 1: ENG 121, ENG 122

Fall 2021-Spring 2022

and ongoing

Implement in ENG 121 and collect assessment data. Ensure rubrics are embedded into D2L for ENG 121. Update online WID resources for faculty and students.

Edit online resources for Centers and Worldwide on website, and place in course shells: WID guidelines, rubrics, and other resources.

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, Writing Faculty, Vice President of Marketing, AWALs (Computer Science and Social Work).

Spring 2022-Fall 2022

and ongoing

Implement in ENG 122 and collect assessment data. Ensure rubrics are embedded into D2L for ENG 122. Update online WID resources for faculty and students.

Edit online resources for Centers and Worldwide on website, and place in course shells: WID guidelines, rubrics, and other resources.

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, Writing Faculty, Vice President of Marketing, AWALs (Computer Science and Social Work).

PHASE II: Pilot Programs (Computer Science and Social Work)

Summer 2022 Identify WID artifacts and develop guidelines for COM 203, SWK 327; develop WID online discipline-specific resources in collaboration with discipline faculty,

Do the SLOs and the WID rubrics align with COM 203 and SWK 327? If they do not, revise and prepare for implementation in COM 203 and SWK 327.

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, Writing Faculty, Marketing, AWALs, CTLE, Writing Assistant


33

(Library), Center for Academic Vision and Excellence (C.A.V.E.), and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (C.T.L.E.) Develop training for COM 203, SWK 327 faculty on WID.

Update the webpage in collaboration with CTLE for discipline-specific online faculty resources.


Fall 2022-Spring 2023

and ongoing

Implement and collect assessment data from ENG 121/122, COM 203, SWK 327.

Did students achieve the SLOs in COM 203 and SWK 327? If they did not, what are we doing to ensure students meet the SLOs? e.g. Changing wording of assignments, changing entire assignments. We can determine if it is across all modalities, or limited to specific modalities: On campus, online or at centers. Is the issue associated with a professor(s)? Student(s)?

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, AWALs

Summer 2023 Identify WID artifacts and develop guidelines for COM 320, SWK 344 and develop WID online discipline-specific resources in collaboration with discipline faculty, (Library), Center for Academic Vision and Excellence (C.A.V.E.), and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (C.T.L.E.)



QEP director, QEP Assistant, AWALs, SWATs, and writing assistants


34

Develop training for COM 320, SWK 324 faculty on WID.


Fall 2023-Spring

2024

Implement and collect data from ENG 121/122; COM 203, 320; SWK 327, 344

Did students achieve the SLOs in ENG 121/122; COM 203, 320; SWK 327, 344? If they did not, what are we doing to ensure students meet the SLOs? E.g., Changing wording of assignments, changing entire assignments. We can determine if it is across all modalities, or limited to specific modalities: On campus, online or at centers. Is the issue associated with a professor(s)? Student(s)?


Summer 2024 Identify WID artifacts and develop guidelines for COM 497, SWK 421 and develop WID online discipline-specific resources in collaboration with discipline faculty, (Library), Center for Academic Vision and Excellence (C.A.V.E.), and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (C.T.L.E.) Develop training for COM 497, SWK 421 faculty on WID.



Update current LibGuides on writing and

QEP director, QEP Assistant, AWALs, SWATs, and writing assistants


35

develop WID LibGuides for students.

Fall 2024-Spring

2025

Implement and collect assignments in COM 497, SWK 421.

Did students achieve the SLOs in ENG 121/122; COM 203, 320, 497; SWK 327 344, 421? If they did not, what are we doing to ensure students meet the SLOs? e.g. Changing wording of assignments, changing entire assignments. We can determine if it is across all modalities, or limited to specific modalities: On campus, online or at centers. Is the issue associated with a professor(s)? Student(s)?

QEP Director, QEP Assistant, AWALs, QEP Leadership Team, AIR.

Table 7

QEP Implementation Phases for Undergraduate Disciplines

Semester Action Results Responsibility

PHASE 3

Fall 2022-Summer 2023 Train Phase 3 Leads; develop WID guidelines for Phase 3 programs; develop Phase 3 course syllabi.

Fall 2023 Implement WID in Phase 3 selected programs and courses

Leads in selected programs will receive training in WID best practices, assessment strategies, and WID curriculum design.


Phase 4

Fall 2023-

Summer 2024

Train Phase 4 Leads; develop WID guidelines for Phase 4 programs;



36

modify Phase 4 course syllabi

Fall 2024 Implement WID in Phase 4 selected programs and courses



PHASE 5

Fall 2024- Summer

2025

Train Phase 5 Leads; develop WID guidelines for Phase 5 programs; develope Phase 5 course syllabi

Fall 2025 Implement WID in selected programs and courses; train Phase 5 Leads; develop WID guidelines for Phase 5 programs; modify Phase 4 course syllabi.


QEP director, QEP Assistant, AWALs

Tentative Program Schedule

Phase Two Programs (2022):

Computer Science

Social Work

Phase Three Programs (2023):

Mathematics

Business

o Sports, Management, Accounting

Education

Psychology

Sociology

Medical Humanities

Phase Four Programs (2024):

Criminal Justice

Human Resources


37

Health Sciences

o Health Education

o Nursing

Religion

Phase Five Programs (2025):

Remaining Business Programs

Contemporary Studies

Theater

History

Veteran Studies

Remaining CS/ Math Programs

Remaining Health Sciences

Institutional Capability and Resources

Saint Leo’s QEP is part of Saint Leo University’s strategic planning and assessment processes

and is outlined below (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Strategic Plan Process

QEP Management

The implementation plan (Table 1) delineates the responsibilities for the QEP, and Figure 6

establishes the lines of reporting and responsibility for the QEP.


38

Figure 6. Reporting and responsibility for QEP.

The Office of Assessment and Institutional Research reports directly to the VPAA and will assist

the academic departments with the gathering, analysis, and reporting of assessment data. The President

of Saint Leo University accepts decisive responsibility for the implementation of READ! WRITE!

transform! The Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) is the senior academic administrative staff

member and reports directly to the President. This provides a direct line of reporting and responsibility

of the QEP to the VPAA and, ultimately, the President.

QEP Leadership Team. The QEP Leadership Team (Table 1) has overseen the development,

assessment, marketing, and implementation of READ! WRITE! transform! and will continue to provide

oversight and feedback for the duration of the QEP. The Chair of the QEP Leadership Team, Dr. Diane

Ball, is the Assistant Vice President of Accreditation and New Program Integration and the SACSCOC

Liaison. She reports directly to the VPAA.

Office of Assessment and Institutional Research. The Office of Assessment and Institutional

Research reports directly to the VPAA. This office will have a significant impact on the successful

implementation of the QEP through the gathering, analysis, and reporting of assessment data. The

Director of Assessment and Institutional Research is a member of the QEP Leadership Team.

QEP Director. The QEP Director is the Chair of the Department of Language Studies and the

Arts and a faculty member, (Appendices A and F) and has been an active member of the QEP

Leadership Team since accepting the position in May 2020. Through experience as a Department Chair

and English faculty member, the QEP Director has gained the knowledge and skills to be successful in

leading a QEP focused on student writing. To provide sufficient time to perform this undertaking, the

QEP Director’s teaching load will remain at 1 course per semester and her course will be ENG 121 or


39

ENG 122. The QEP Director is responsible for the implementation and administration of the QEP and

reports to the VPAA. The QEP Director will oversee and collaborate with all appropriate personnel

including the Writing Assistant, AWALs, faculty, and SWATs.

QEP Assistant. This individual (Appendix B) will report to the QEP Director. This person will

assist the QEP Director in the implementation and assessment of the QEP. The assistant will assist in the

development of rubrics for all courses associated with the QEP and the development of WID skills and

core values into the curriculum and foster a culture of active student learning. The assistant will work in

collaboration with the Office for Assessment and Institutional Research, the Department Chairs of

Computer Science and Social Work.

Writing Assistant. This individual currently holds the rank of adjunct faculty and has

experience working in a Writing Center. The Writing Assistant reports directly to the QEP Director and

assists in writing support for students across all University modalities.

AWALs. The AWALs (Appendix C) are responsible for providing guidance with writing

initiatives in the discipline assessment collection, and to act as a resource for the implementation of the

current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). The AWALs will integrate the critical thinking skills and core

values into their major program curriculum and foster a culture of active student learning in the

disciplines.

QEP Assessment Team. Comprised of the QEP Director, the QEP Assistant, the Director of

Assessment and Institutional Research, the AWALs and discipline faculty members, the Assessment

Team will work with the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research to gather, analyze, and report

data related to the assessment of student learning outcomes.

WID Resource Center. Upon reviewing the best practices and considering all three

modalities/locations—University Campus, Education Centers, and Worldwide Online—the QEP

Director will maintain a virtual WID Resource Center for faculty and students. Housed at Saint Leo

University Campus, the oversight and upkeep of the WID Resource Center will be the responsibility of

the QEP Director with the assistance of student interns in the three specializations in the English major:

Creative Writing, Literary and Cultural Studies, and Professional Writing. The first phase of the site

(development) will begin in Summer 2021.

Resources to Support the QEP

In planning for fiscal years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024, 2024-2025, the

Office of Financial Resources included the development and design phases of the QEP in its budget. The

QEP Budget Team includes Saint Leo University’s Chief Financial Officer, the QEP Director, Finance

Department staff members, and members of the QEP Leadership Team. They developed the budget for

the QEP including implementation and continuing costs alongside the design and development of the

overall QEP.


40

Once the QEP implementation details were proposed, the QEP Leadership Team and Budget

Team began determining budget line items. The proposed budget (Table 8) was presented and approved

in October 2020. As of fiscal year 2020-2021, the QEP will follow the same development and reporting

process as the other programs and administrative departments at the University. A five-year cumulative

budget was calculated and approved that encompasses faculty stipends, faculty training, information

technology, and assessment. To ensure the success of the QEP, funds and resources will be allocated as

well as reallocated from existing resources (Appendix I).

The professional culture at Saint Leo University and the Core Values promote and foster a spirit

in the Benedictine tradition of Community Service from administrators, faculty, staff, and students.

Community participation is encouraged. Faculty training is a significant part of the QEP implementation

plan and the QEP Director, QEP Assistant, Writing Assistant, AWALs, SWATs, all paid positions, will

have completed training as part of their job descriptions. Housed on a Saint Leo University website

under the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, the oversight and maintenance of the WID

Resource Center will be the responsibility of the QEP Director with the assistance of Information

Technology staff and are included in these job descriptions and salaries. Led by the AWALs, as

specified in their job description, program faculty will develop program-specific writing guides.

AEFIS, Saint Leo’s assessment software, is replacing its predecessor, Chalk and Wire, and will

be used to compile data from the courses under the QEP. The faculty, QEP Director, QEP Assistant, and

Writing Assistant will develop objective writing assessments and program-specific WID rubrics in-

house. The QEP Director, QEP Assistant, faculty, the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research,

and the WID Assessment Team will conduct QEP assessments.

At Saint Leo, faculty members will continue to use their offices as the point of contact. No

additional room assignments will be needed. Training for the QEP will occur in the Center for Teaching

and Learning Excellence and the WID Resource Center will be housed on CTLE webpage. Marketing

the QEP to faculty at all three modalities—Education Centers, University Campus, and Worldwide

Online—will be done virtually through zoom meetings at the departmental, college, and institutional

level. A designated webpage for the QEP will be developed in February 2021 and be maintained and

updated by the webpage designer and the QEP Director. The WID Resource Center, the CAVE, Student

Affairs, and Student Government will help market the QEP to students. Learning Design will assist in

providing the QEP logo and a brief paragraph that outlines the QEP to students and faculty. The QEP

Director will also use SWAT to assist in the marketing of the QEP to students. A recording will be

placed in D2L course shells in Summer 2021 and updated annually, by the QEP Director in collaboration

with the Learning Design team. All swag items will be purchased in February 2021 and distributed

throughout the first year of the QEP to generate interest and excitement in the program. The swag will be

incorporated into Student packets for incoming freshmen as well as Student Affairs activities for other


41

students. A detailed budget by fiscal year is below. Below is a summary budget for the QEP (rounded to

the nearest one hundred dollars).

Table 8

Summary budget for the QEP

QEP FINANCIAL RESOURCE BUDGET ( POST REVISED) Academic Year Description Funding

2020-2021

QEP Director $7,000.00 QEP Literature Review Writers (2) $5,000.00 QEP Assistant $4,000.00 Academic Writing Assessment Leads (AWALs) in academic majors $10,000.00

External Reviewer Stipend $2,000.00 Writing Assistant Stipend $2,500.00 Student Writing Academic Team (SWAT) Training (4) @ $500 each $2,000.00

Communication & Marketing $2,500.00 Operating Expenses related to Equipment & supplies $2,000.00

Total $37,000.00

2021-2022

QEP Director $7,000.00 QEP Assistant $4,000.00 Writing Assistant Stipend $7,000.00 Academic Writing and Assessment Leads (AWALs) in academic majors $10,000.00

Student Writing Academic Team (SWAT) Training (4) @ $500 each $2,000.00

Communication & Marketing $2,500.00 Operating Expenses related to Equipment & supplies $2,000.00

Total $34,500.00

2022-2023



Revision of Courses for QEP additions $26,000.00 Total $71,000.00

2023-2024




42


2024-2025




2025-2026

QEP Director $7,000.00

QEP Assistant $4,000.00

Total $11,000.00 Total 5-year QEP Budget $295,500.00

Assessment of Our QEP

Our QEP—READ! WRITE! transform! —reflects Saint Leo University’s (2020c) mission to

offer a “practical, effective model for life and leadership in a challenging world” and the institution’s

commitment to graduate students with transferable writing skills to communicate effectively within their

chosen discipline and in the workplace (para. 1). The main objectives of the QEP are integrating WID

best practices in University Explorations (UE) English foundations courses, Computer Science, and

Social Work and establishing programs and services to support and enhance discipline-specific discourse

communities through the Saint Leo culture. The assessment plan outlined in this section is based upon a

QEP WID rubric currently in development. The purpose of the assessment measures and tools are to

measure the extent of student learning and success of the implementation of the QEP.

Institutional and Programmatic Assessment: Written Communication

The Social Work department reviewed their written communication student learning outcomes

in their most recent Annual Performance Review (APR) of the program. Their assessment measures are

part of their national accrediting body’s standards for accreditation. The Computer Science department

currently does not assess writing as part of its SLOs in the program, yet there are writing activities

throughout the program.

Current Assessment of Written Communication

The QEP builds on Saint Leo University’s UE Student Learning Outcomes, as well as ENG

121/122 and current employer demands for the transferable “power skills” needed in the 21st Century

workplace. We have assessed this outcome at the institutional level by reviewing the assessment scores

in the Key Assignment in ENG 121 and ENG 122 over the past five years.


43

Institutional assessment of written communication in these UE courses was carried out under the

auspices of the UE Advisory Council chair in 2019 and 2020. This review was in coordination with the

Department of Language Studies and the Arts revision of the master course syllabi of ENG 121/122 to

respond to workplace needs rather than focus on academic writing only. Key assignments were graded

using a standard rubric in Chalk & Wire.

The UE data was disaggregated by term and course, and includes students from University

Campus, Education Centers, and Worldwide Online. For the initial data collection in Fall 2019,

competency percentage goals were set at 50%, where at least 50% of the students would score at or

above the target of 3, on a 3-point scale, with the intention of pushing these goals to 80% by Fall 2021;

scores and analysis are provided below:

Table 9

Fall 2, 2018; Spring 1, 2019: ENG 121/122

2018FA2 2019SP1

Course Goal

N Students Scoring 3

N Students

% Students

Achieving 3

N Students Scoring 3 N Students

% Students Achieving 3

ENG-121 Communicate

Clearly 52 98 53.06% 90 172 52.33%

ENG-121 Critical Thinking 78 98 79.59% 102 172 59.30%

ENG-122 Communicate

Clearly 106 159 66.67% 178 264 67.42%

ENG-122 Critical Thinking 73 159 45.91% 94 264 35.61%

Table 10

Spring 2, 2019; Summer 1, 2019: ENG 121/122

2019SP2 2019SU1

Course Goal N Students Scoring 3 N Students

Percentage Students

Achieving 3 N Students Scoring 3 N Students

Percentage Students

Achieving 3

ENG-121 Communicate

Clearly 52 90 57.78% 53 101 52.48%

ENG-121 Critical

Thinking 66 90 73.33% 77 101 76.24%

ENG-122 Communicate

Clearly 120 152 78.95% 68 91 74.73%

ENG-122 Critical

Thinking 89 152 58.55% 54 91 59.34%

Table 11

Summer 2, 2019; Fall 1, 2019: ENG 121/122

2019SU2 2019FA1


44

Course Goal N Students Scoring 3

N Students

Percentage Students


Percentage Students

Achieving 3

ENG-121 Communicate

Clearly 31 75 41.33% 127 208 61.06%

ENG-121 Critical

Thinking 43 75 57.33% 117 208 56.25%

ENG-122 Communicate

Clearly 78 105 74.29% 161 230 70.00%

ENG-122 Critical

Thinking 53 105 50.48% 107 230 46.52%

Table 12

Fall 2, 2019; Spring 1, 2020

2019FA2 2020SP1

Course Goal N Students Scoring 3

N Students

Percentage Students


Percentage Students

Achieving 3

ENG-121 Communicate

Clearly 46 78 58.97% 114 220 51.82%

ENG-121 Critical

Thinking 51 78 65.38% 135 220 61.36%

ENG-122 Communicate

Clearly 83 130 63.85% 131 204 64.22%

ENG-122 Critical

Thinking 55 130 42.31% 78 204 38.24%

Table 13

Spring 2, 2020

2020SP2

Course Goal N Students Scoring 3 N Students

Percentage Students Achieving

3 ENG-121 Communicate Clearly 29 63 46.03% ENG-121 Critical Thinking 53 63 84.13% ENG-122 Communicate Clearly 92 146 63.01% ENG-122 Critical Thinking 57 146 39.04%

As Tables 9-13 indicate, Communicating Clearly ranked lowest of the SLOs in ENG 121 in

almost all terms. Critical thinking skills ranked lowest of the SLOs in ENG 122 since Fall 2, 2018.

Critical Thinking and Communicating Clearly are linked to reading and writing and are co-dependent.

Communicating Clearly is tied to critical thinking and developing thoughts into clear, precise language

that captures the meaning—intended and unintended. In the previous ENG 121/122, literature was the

lens through which students wrote a research paper as well as essays but was disconnected from the

“power skills” stakeholders and employers were seeking. Students were unable to connect the techniques

of literary analysis and critical thinking with their disciplines. Once students passed these courses and

moved to COM 203, for example, they were unable to write a research proposal, or an annotated


45

bibliography using the techniques they learned in ENG 121/122. In the redesigned ENG 121/122, the

courses focus on writing for different audiences using rhetorical analysis as the focal point. The shift to

different audiences and how to write for them is an important one in developing the “power skills”

necessary for the workplace. To implement the proposed changes, develop rubrics for key assignments,

and to assess student learning in ENG 121/122, a pilot was developed for Fall 2020 and Spring 2021

with the support of the Chair and QEP Director as well as the faculty in English in the Department of

Language Studies and the Arts. The rubrics are currently under development.

English 121 Pilot. The Department of Language Studies and the Arts began a pilot project for

ENG 121 in the fall of 2020 to introduce assignments proposed for this redesign. The focus was course

materials and developing assignments in collaboration with the English faculty and students in the pilots.

The master course syllabus was then revised by a full time English faculty member who presented to the

English faculty in the Department of Language Studies and the Arts in November 2020. After further

consultation and discussion, the faculty approved the master course syllabus, which was updated and

will be used as part of the pilot implementation in Spring 2021. This involved two sections: ENG-121-

CA06 and ENG-121-CA13. QEP key assignments were identified and align with QEP SLOs and were

determined in consultation with the QEP Director and Chair of Language Studies and the Arts. The three

assignments for ENG 121 are as follows: Multimodal Artifacts, Rhetorical Analysis assignment, and

Final Reflection. Upon review of the Final Reflection in Fall 2021, to better assist students in this

assignment, mini reflections were added to the ENG 121 master syllabus at the end of each module. By

doing so, we scaffold this important assignment as preparation for ENG 122 and the Research project.

The course was approved by the College of Arts and Sciences in December 2020, and then approved by

the University Curriculum Committee in December 2020. The QEP WID rubric will be developed in

Summer 2021. The new master course syllabus with the QEP WID rubric will be implemented in Fall

2021. As part of the QEP, revisions to the master syllabus assignments and the QEP WID rubric will be

completed in Summer 2022, after a full academic year of implementation across all modalities and

assessment data are collected.

English 122 Pilot. The Department of Language Studies and the Arts began the Fall 2020

semester with a pilot. This pilot included one section: ENG 122-CA01 and focused on the development

of assignments and course materials as part of the course redesign. As the course was piloted, a

discussion with the English faculty revealed the need for a literature review, to align with the needs of

the disciplines. The key change to the master syllabus was the scaffolding of assignments so that

students develop their skills in stages and understand how these skills relate to each other. In the Fall

2020 ENG 122 pilot, students struggled with synthesizing information. Assignments indicated

weaknesses in identifying key ideas in multiple sources, including summarizing similarities and

differences between sources. Moreover, students had difficulties determining when sources were needed

to support claims made. Based on these struggles, the English faculty added a draft of the research paper


46

to be submitted, included more exercises in peer review, and developed in-class exercises for the spring

pilot to assess comprehension and student learning of how to use sources, how to cite them, and how to

synthesize information for a research paper. The ENG 122 course redesign was approved by the

University Curriculum Committee in December 2020 and is implemented in the pilot in Spring 2021. In

the Spring 2021 pilot, short videos will be developed to support student learning in these areas with

examples. A QEP WID Rubric is currently under development by the QEP Director/Chair of Language

Studies and the Arts/Associate Professor of English.

The baseline data for the QEP for ENG 121 will begin in Fall 2021 and for ENG 122 begin in

Spring 2022. The tables below (Tables 14-16) highlight the outcomes, the assessment tool, the

frequency/data collection, the benchmarks and the indirect assessments and the QEP WID rubric

(currently under development).

Table 14

QEP Assessment Plan

Outcome Assessment Tool Frequency / Data Collection Benchmark

EFW1.1: Students will be able to apply foundational skills required in writing.

QEP WID Rubric Domain 1 (Currently under development)

For assignments in: ENG 121 (Fall 2021-

Spring 2022) ENG 122 (Spring 2022-

Fall 2022) COM 203, SWK 327

(Fall 2022-Spring 2023) COM 497, SWK 421

(Fall 2024-Spring 2025)

Goal is 85% of students will score 3.0 on a 4-point scale; average increase in score of 0.5 for the domain on the rubric:

from: ENG 121 baseline to ENG 122

from: ENG 122 baseline to COM 203 and SWK 327

from: COM 203 baseline to COM 497

from: SWK 327 baseline to SWK 421

EFW1.2: Students will be able to incorporate audience into their analysis.

QEP WID Rubric Domain 1 (Audience)(Currently under development)

For assignments in: ENG 121 (Fall 2021-


Fall 2022) COM 203 (Fall 2022-

Spring 2023) SWK 344 (Fall 2023-

Spring 2023) COM 497, SWK 421


Goal is 85% of students will score 3.0 on a 4-point scale; average increase in score of 0.5 for the domains on the rubric:





EFW1.3: Students will perceive that their writing skills have improved.

End-of-Course Evaluations (Currently under revision)

For courses: ENG 121 (Fall 2021-


Fall 2022) COM 203, SWK 327


Goal is 85% of students will score 3.0 on a 4-point scale; average increase in score of 0.5 using survey items:




47

COM 497, SWK 421 (Fall 2024-Spring 2025)



FIC2.1: Students will apply effective writing skills in the discipline.


For assignments in: COM

203, SWK 327 (Fall 2022-Spring 2023)





FIC2.2: Students will create effective artifacts within the discipline.


For assignments in: COM 203 (Fall 2022-

Spring 2023) SWK 344 (Fall 2023-

Spring 2024) COM 497, SWK

421 (Fall 2024-Spring 2025)




TSW3.1: Students will be able to identify and explain the benefits of writing in their discipline.


For assignments in: ENG 121, ENG 122 COM 203, SWK

327 (Fall 2022-Spring 2023)


Goal is 85% of students will score 3.0 on a 4-point scale; or average increase in score of 0.5 for the domains on the rubric:





TSW3.2: Students will value writing as applied to a discipline.

End-of course survey (Currently under development)

For courses: ENG 121, ENG 122 COM 203, SWK

327 (Fall 2022-Spring 2023)


Goal is 85% of students will score 3.0 on a 4-point scale; or average increase in score of 0.5 using survey items:





Table 15

Indirect Assessments for the QEP

Indirect Assessments for the QEP

End-of-course student evaluations

Items to be determined

At the end of each course identified for the QEP starting

Fall 2021.

Goal is for 85% of respondents will score at least a 3.0 on a 4-point scale for

all items.


48

Faculty Survey Items to be determined

At the end of each course identified for the QEP starting

Fall 2021.

Goal is for 85% of respondents will score at least a 3.0 on a 4-point scale for

all items.

Assessment/Self-Assessments of Students’ WID Skills and Faculty Development

The Assessment Team met to develop SLOs for the QEP beginning in Summer 2020. The

redesign of ENG 121/122 was based on the need for “power skills” judged to be essential in the

workplace by employers. As a result, the SLOs address effective writing skills (EFW), formal and

informal writing contexts (FIC), and writing as a transferable skill for the workplace (TSW). The QEP

WID rubric is currently under development and will be completed in Summer 2021.

For QEP Goal One, effective writing; Goal Two, formal and informal contexts (FIC); and

Goal Three, transferable writing skills, the assignments identified for ENG 121 (Multimodal

assignment, Rhetorical Analysis assignment, and Final Reflection assignment) will be implemented

beginning in Fall 2021. The assignments identified for ENG 122 (Annotated Bibliography, Literature

Review, and Research Paper) will be implemented beginning Spring 2022. Courses and assignments to

be identified in Computer Science and Social Work will be completed during each phase of the QEP

implementation. Survey items will be added to each QEP identified course to assess student perceptions

of learning. Faculty feedback surveys will be developed and distributed via the AIR office to all faculty

teaching ENG 121/122, as well as the Computer Science and Social Work courses identified and will

focus on faculty responses to course content, student learning, and strengths and suggested

improvements. The faculty feedback surveys will also be distributed to faculty teaching the course

identified in the remaining disciplines.

As the QEP develops in phases so, too, will the development of a reflection assignment and a

common QEP WID rubric. The reflection will assess student learning in the discipline as a transferable

skill. The reflections will be collected throughout the students’ academic progress in the discipline by the

AWALs, and assessed by the QEP Director, the QEP Assistant, and the AWALs. The reflection will

track and assess the effectiveness of QEP Goal 3, Transferable skill for the workplace (TSW).

The assessment plan is important in gathering evidence at every stage during the implementation

of Program Goals and gathering voices and perspectives at every stage of the process. From freshman

year to senior year, evidence will be gathered from assignments selected for the QEP. The learning and

teaching resources developed by faculty, writing assistants, AWALs, SWAT, and the QEP Director and

QEP Assistant, will be housed on the WAC/WID section of the CTLE webpage, and an online student

resources page will be housed on the Student Resources section of the CAVE webpage as well as placed

in online LibGuides.

The Assessment Plan (Table 14) identifies outcomes, assessment tool, frequency/data collection

and benchmarks. At Saint Leo University, all courses are organized as eight modules. Each module on

University Campus is taught across a 16-week semester. In courses at Education Centers and Worldwide

Online, all courses are taught in an 8-week term. There are two terms per semester for these two


49

modalities. Regardless of modality, all assessments address the overall SLOs for the QEP. The student

feedback, faculty feedback, and reflection assignments assess student learning, as well as provide

valuable faculty and student perceptions of an entire course and not a specific module’s objectives or

topic.

Writing in the Disciplines as a focus allows for a discussion of what is common to learning and

succeeding in every discipline—reading and writing. When these activities, so central to learning, become a

common focus for the university, there is active collaboration and shared outcomes at every stage of the QEP.

For Saint Leo’s QEP, a common QEP WID rubric will be developed for all courses identified. This QEP WID

rubric will enable us to track learning from freshman year through their senior year in the pilot programs. This

QEP WID rubric will also be used for the one course identified in the major. Computer Science faculty,

Social Work faculty and the Chairs of those disciplines will develop WID guidelines and identify WID

artifacts in collaboration with the QEP Director, QEP Assistant, QEP Assessment Team, and AWALs in the

discipline. These components will be developed in Social Work and Computer Science in Summer 2022,

prior to implementation in Fall 2022. A WID reflection rubric will be used in all courses identified for the

QEP across all undergraduate majors (Table 16).

Table 16

QEP Writing in the Disciplines (WID) Rubric

QEP Writing in the Disciplines (WID) Rubric (Draft/Under Development) Domain Scale

1 2 3 4 1. Effective Writing/Critical Thinking

Rhetorical Analysis Audience Purpose Context

Elements of Composition Grammar and Mechanics

Structure and Organization Annotated Bibliography/Literature Review/Research Paper

Quality and Authority of Sources Quality of Summary of Ideas

Documentation 2. Formal and Informal Contexts

Students will apply discipline-specific writing skills.

Students will create effective artifacts within the disciplines.

3. Transferable Writing Skills Students will identify the benefits of writing in

their discipline.


50

WID Implementation Assessment

The success of WID implementation in Computer Science and Social Work programs will be

determined by the following: successful completion of the first-year implementation assignments and the

development of program-specific rubrics that align with the QEP SLOs and are consistent throughout the

same assignments in the discipline.

Faculty who participate in the QEP will complete a survey from the AIR office, in which they

identify the strengths and weaknesses of specific pedagogical strategies and present their findings at the

bi-annual CTLE Faculty Development Day. The QEP Assessment Team will assess student writing in

ENG 121 and ENG 122. Student assignments completed in Spring 2021 pilots in UE foundational

English courses will be collected and be used to make improvements to any course materials if needed.

Faculty Training, Support, and Resources Assessment

The success of the faculty training, support, and resources using the following criteria:

1. WID training completed for faculty in all three modalities: University Campus,

Education Centers, and Worldwide Online.

2. Virtual WID Resource Center established for faculty and students.

3. LibGuides established for students on WID.

4. SWATs embedded in courses identified as WID in Computer Science and Social Work.

Feedback on QEP initiatives will be collected from faculty and students in WID courses in the

following manner:

1. Surveys from AIR office

2. Surveys from CTLE Professional Development Day faculty presentations on teaching

WID and best practices.

3. Faculty surveys on effectiveness of the WID online resource center.

4. Student surveys on effectiveness of the WID online resource center.

5. Student surveys on effectiveness of the WID LibGuides

Conclusion

Throughout Saint Leo University, annual assessment is conducted for all programs offered. The

QEP assessment measures will be added to the annual assessment of the programs involved in the

College of Arts and Sciences, Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Data Science, and

Education and Social Services. The assessments will guide administrators in program development,

faculty training, and student learning across all three modalities/locations: University Campus, Education

Centers, Worldwide Online. The QEP Annual Assessment Report will comprise the assessment artifacts

outlined in the QEP and involve the QEP Director, the QEP Assistant, the AWALs, and the Office of

Assessment and Institutional Research. Strategies for improvement will be researched and implemented

when needed. The QEP Director will be responsible for organizing and conducting assessments with


51

faculty in the disciplines piloted with the QEP—Computer Science, English, Social Work—as well as

the remaining undergraduate disciplines, with the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research. All

assessments will be stored electronically and available for members of the QEP Leadership Team, and

all other administrators and faculty teaching courses related to the QEP Program Goals and Student

Learning Outcomes. The Annual Assessment Report will be reviewed by the QEP Leadership Team, the

SACSCOC Liaison, the Senior Leadership Team, the President, and the Board of Trustees of Saint Leo

University. Recommendations will be reviewed and edited into the QEP assessment reports and the five-

year report to SACSCOC.


52

References

Agarwal, A. (2018, October 03). Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anantagarwal/2018/10/02/data-reveals-why-the-soft-in-soft-skills-

is-a-major-misnomer/?sh=50e3400f6f7b

Belanger, K. (2020). Professional and Workplace Writing. Retrieved from WAC Clearinghouse:

https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/proceedings/wyoming2003/belanger/

Bergmann, L. S., & Zepernick, J. S. (2007). Disciplanarity and Transfer: Students' Perceptions of

Learning to Write. WPA: Journal of Council of Writing Program Administrators, 31(1-2), 124-

179.

Business World. (2017). 10 reasons why business writing skills are so important. Retrieved from

https://www.businessworld.ie/news/10-Reasons-Why-Business-Writing-Skills-Are-So-

Important-569924.html

Career Addict. (2016). The importance of good writing skills in the workplace. Retrieved from

https://www.careeraddict.com/the-importance-of-good-writing-skills-in-the-workplace

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the discipline. College composition and

communication, (pp. 385-418).

Condrad, J. (2020). How strong writing skills benefit your career. Retrieved from

https://careerconnections.smeal.psu.edu/blog/2018/06/07/how-strong-writing-skills-benefit-

your-career

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Commission. (2015). Educational Policy and Accreditation

Standards. Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Commission. Retrieved from

https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Accreditation-Process/2015-

EPAS/2015EPAS_Web_FINAL.pdf.aspx

Crank, V. (2012). From High School to College: Developing Writing Skills in the Disciplines. The WAC

Journal 23, 49-63.

Gardner, T. (2008). Designing writing assignments. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of

English.

Hall, J. (2006). Toward a Unified Writing Curriculum: Integrating WAC/WID with Freshman. The WAC

Journal, 5-22.

Hanover Research. (2017). Writing skills for career and advancement. Arlington, VA.

Hart Research Associates. (2015a). Optimistic about the future, but how well prepared? College

student’s views on college learning and career success. Retrieved from

https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015StudentSurveyReport.pdf

Hart Research Associates. (2015b). Falling short? College learning and career success. Retrieved from

https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf


53

Hoover, B. (2013, 03 04). Good grammar should be everyone’s business. Retrieved 2020, from Harvard

Business Review: HBR Blog: https://hbr. org/2013/03/good-grammar-should-be-everyon

Jarrat, S. C., Mack, K., Watson, S. E., & Sartor, A. (2009). Pedigogical Memory: Writing, mapping, and

translating. WPA: Journal of Coucil of Writing Program Adminstrators, 33(1-2), 46-73.

Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lucio, R., & Nelson, T. (2015). What business want from our graduates. Saint Leo University.

Mickey, S. (2021, January 04). personal communication.

Monroe, J. (2003). Writing and the disciplines. Retrieved from

https://aacu.org.895elmp01.blackmesh.com/publications-research/periodicals/writing-and-

disciplines

National Association of College and Employers. (2020). Career Readiness Defined. Retrieved from

NACE Center for Career Development and Talent Acquisition:

https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/

National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. The

report of the National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges.

National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2020). Retrieved

from https://www.iad.gov/NIETP/documents/Requirements/CAE_CD-R_Criteria_Re-

Designation2020.pdf

NCTE. (2008). Writing Now: A Policy Brief. Retrieved from NCTE National Council of Teachers of

English: https://ncte.org/statement/writing-now-a-policy-research-brief/

Nesi, H. (2012). Writing in the disciplines. Writing in the disciplines: Building supportive cultures for

student writing in UK higher education., (pp. 55-74).

Pittenger, K. K., Miller, M. C., & Allison, J. (2006). Can we succeed in teaching business students to

write effectively? Business Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 257-263.

Russell, D. (2013). Contradictions regarding teaching and writing (or writing to learn) in the disciplines:

What we have learned in the USA. REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11(1), p. 161.

Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricularhistory. SIU Press.

Saint Leo University. (2019). Center for Online Learning Fast Facts. Saint Leo University.

Saint Leo University. (2020a). Mission Statement. Retrieved from Saint Leo University:

https://www.saintleo.edu/history-values-catholic-roots

Saint Leo University. (2020b). University Explorations Program Assessment. Retrieved from Saint Leo

University: https://www.saintleo.edu/university-explorations-program-assessment

Saint Leo University. (2020c). Mission and Core Values. Retrieved from Saint Leo University:

https://www.saintleo.edu/mission-core-values

Saint Leo University. (2020d). 2020-2021 Undergradate Academic Catalog. Retrieved from Saint Leo

University:


54

http://saintleo.catalog.acalog.com/search_advanced.php?cur_cat_oid=41&search_database=Sear

ch&search_db=Search&cpage=1&ecpage=1&ppage=1&spage=1&tpage=1&location=33&filter[

keyword]=ENG121

Saint Leo University. (2020e). University Facts: Headcounts. Office of Assessment and Institutional

Research.

Simonds, L. (2013, April). Good writing can help you succeed. Retrieved Novemeber 2020, from

https://business.time.com/2013/04/19/good-writing-can-help-you-succeed/

Snead, R. (2011). "Transfer-Ability": Issues of Transfer and FYC. WPA-Compile(18). Retrieved 2020,

from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/comppile/wpa/Snead.pdf

Soloman, G. (2018). Why mastering writing skills can help future-proof your career. Retrieved from

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gretasolomon/2018/08/09/why-mastering-writing-skills-

can-help-future-proof-your-career/#2b4319645831

Somers, M. (2018, Feburary 06). 4 things you need to know about soft skills. Retrieved from MIT

Management Sloan School: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/4-things-you-need-to-

know-about-soft-skills

Swales, J. M. (2016). Reflections on the concept of discourse community. ASp la revue du GERAS(69),

7-19. doi:10.4000/asp.4774

Taffe, W. J. (1997). Writing in the Computer Science. Writing Across the Curriculm, 8. Retrieved from

https://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol8/taffe.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Retrieved from U.S.

Department of Education: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf

WAC Clearinghouse. (2020a). Why Include Writing in My Courses? Retrieved from WAC

Clearinghouse: https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/include/

WAC Clearinghouse. (2020b). Reflect. Retrieved from WAC Clearinghouse:

https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/reflect/

WAC Clearinghouse. (2020c). Resources. Retrieved from WAC Clearinghouse:

https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/

WAC Clearninghouse. (2020d). What is Writing in the Discipline? Retrieved from WAC Clearinghouse:

https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/wid/

Young, A., & Clearinghouse, W. A. (2006). Teaching writing across the curriculm. New Jersey: Pearson

Prentice Hall.


55

Appendix A: QEP Director Position Description

QEP Director Position Description TITLE: QEP Director DEPARTMENT: Academic Affairs REPORTS TO: Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) COMPENSATION: $7,000.00 PURPOSE: This is a part time, administrative position responsible to the VPAA. The role of this position is to provide executive guidance, leadership, coaching and to oversee, implement, and assess the current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). The director will oversee the development of rubrics for all courses associated with the QEP and the development of WID skills and core values into the curriculum and foster a culture of active student learning. The director will work in collaboration with several entities on campus: Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE), the Budget Office (CFO), the Office for Assessment and Institutional Research (AIR), the Department of Computer Science, the Department of Social Work, and the respective Deans in which the QEP aligned courses are housed. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY: The director will develop knowledge and skills in critical thinking, Writing in the Disciplines, and the teaching of critical thinking and core values. The director will manage the integration of critical thinking skills, core values into courses and oversee the general education modifications to ENG 121/122. The director, in collaboration with AWALs and the Department Chairs of Computer Science and Social Work will manage the oversight of the COM and SWK modifications. The director will review assessment data with the QEP Assessment team and assist faculty members to ensure that critical thinking skills in writing in the disciplines and core values are integrated into the student learning experience. Specific duties include but are not limited to the following:

Collaborate with CTLE in the faculty professional development training program. Identify strengths of the WID curriculum in coordination with AWALs and Department

Chairs to the application of critical thinking in WID initiatives and values to decision making. Test innovations and techniques in teaching critical thinking skills in WID and values

development in courses they teach. Manage workshops on teaching critical thinking skills in WID at the faculty development

events. Develop curriculum that infuses critical thinking WID skills. Manage the modifications to courses with learning designers for design and revision of online

courses. Work with the department chairs on course re-development. Assist with communication to the faculty about the QEP. Collaborate with other faculty members on critical thinking in WID initiatives.

QUALIFICATIONS: The candidates will be volunteers who possesses administrator experience in one of the disciplines in the QEP. The director must be interested in strengthening WID skills and committed to integrating critical thinking skills and core values into courses in collaboration with departments. The statements contained herein reflect general details necessary to describe the principle functions of this job, the level of knowledge and skill typically required, and the scope of responsibility; however, should not be considered an all-inclusive listing of the job requirements


56

Appendix B: QEP Assistant

QEP Assistant Position Description TITLE: QEP Assistant DEPARTMENT: Academic Affairs REPORTS TO: QEP Director COMPENSATION: $4,000.00 PURPOSE: This is a part time, administrative position responsible to the QEP Director. The role of this position is to assist the QEP Director in the implementation and assessment of the current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). The assistant will assist in the development of rubrics for all courses associated with the QEP and the development of WID skills and core values into the curriculum and foster a culture of active student learning. The assistant will work in collaboration with the Office for Assessment and Institutional Research (AIR), the Department of Computer Science, the Department of Social Work, and the respective Deans in which the QEP aligned courses are housed. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY: The assistant will help manage the integration of critical thinking skills, core values into courses. The assistant, in collaboration with AWALs and the Department Chairs of Computer Science and Social Work, will assist the QEP Director in managing the COM and SWK modifications. The assistant will review assessment data with the QEP Assessment team and assist faculty members to ensure that critical thinking skills in writing in the disciplines and core values are integrated into the student learning experience. Specific duties include but are not limited to the following:

Collaborate with CTLE in the faculty professional development training program. Test innovations and techniques in teaching critical thinking skills in WID and values

development in courses they teach. Help organize workshops on teaching critical thinking skills in WID at the faculty development

events. Assist in the development of curriculum that infuses critical thinking WID skills. Assist with communication to the faculty about the QEP. Collaborate with other faculty members on critical thinking in WID initiatives.

QUALIFICATIONS: The candidates will have expertise in one of the disciplines in the QEP. The assistant must be interested in strengthening WID skills and committed to integrating critical thinking skills and core values into courses in collaboration with departments. The statements contained herein reflect general details necessary to describe the principle functions of this job, the level of knowledge and skill typically required, and the scope of responsibility; however, should not be considered an all-inclusive listing of the job requirements


57

Appendix C: Academic Writing and Assessment Leads

QEP Academic Writing and Assessment Leads (AWALs) Position Description TITLE: QEP Academic Writing and Assessment Lead (AWAL) DEPARTMENT: Academic Affairs NUMBER OF AWALs: 4 positions (2 in Computer Science and 2 in Social Work) REPORTS TO: QEP Director COMPENSATION: $2,500.00 each PURPOSE: This is a part time, faculty rank position responsible to the QEP Director. The role of this position is to provide guidance with writing initiatives in the discipline assessment collection, and to act as a resource for the implementation of the current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). The AWALs will integrate the critical thinking skills and core values into their major program curriculum and foster a culture of active student learning in the disciplines. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY: Faculty AWALs will develop knowledge and skills in critical thinking, core values, and teach critical thinking and core values in the discipline. They will assist with the major program modifications, and assist other faculty members in the major to ensure that writing in the discipline skills and Saint Leo core values are integrated into the student learning experience. Specific duties include but are not limited to the following:

Participate in a summer faculty professional development training program. Participate in individual and group learning activities throughout the year to develop their

knowledge and skills in writing in the discipline and to foster conversations about the relationship of critical thinking and values to decision making.

Identify strengths of the curriculum in the application of critical thinking and writing in the discipline.

Test innovations and techniques in teaching critical thinking skills and values development in courses they teach.

Offer workshops on teaching critical thinking skills and core values at faculty development events.

Work closely with course designers for design and revision of online courses. Work with their department chair or program director on course re-development. Assist with communication to the faculty about the QEP. Collaborate with other faculty members on critical thinking and values based learning.

QUALIFICATIONS: The candidates will be volunteers who are full-time faculty members in Computer Science (1) and Social Work (1) and/or annual contract adjunct faculty members. The faculty fellows must be interested in strengthening their teaching skills, committed to integrating critical thinking skills and core values into their courses, and be willing to assist in the development and assessment of Writing in the Discipline (WID) rubrics, assignments, and resource guides. The statements contained herein reflect general details necessary to describe the main functions of this job, the level of knowledge and skill typically required, and the scope of responsibility; however, they should not be considered an all-inclusive listing of the job requirements


58

Appendix D: ENG 121—Master Syllabus

College of Arts and Sciences Department of Language Studies and the Arts

ENG 121: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric 3 credits

Fall/ Spring 20XX Professor: IOR (instructor of record) list your name and title Course Number: ENG 122 (3 credits) (IOR change section #) Prerequisites: ENG 121 Classroom Location: IOR list building and room # (IOR delete row for online classes) Class Hours: IOR list days and times (IOR delete row for online classes) Office Location: IOR list building and room # (IOR delete row for online

classes) Office Hours: IOR list days and times and by appointment Office Telephone: IOR list area code and telephone # E-mail: IOR list your e-mail address Location: IOR list your Center location

Saint Leo University’s Core Values: Personal Development: Saint Leo University stresses the development of every person’s mind, spirit, and body for a balanced

life. All members of the Saint Leo University community must demonstrate their commitment to personal development to help strengthen the character of our community.

Excellence: Saint Leo University is an educational enterprise. All of us, individually and collectively, work hard to

ensure that our students develop the character, learn the skills, and assimilate the knowledge essential to become morally responsible leaders. The success of our University depends upon a conscientious commitment to our mission, vision, and goals.

Course Description: The way we write and the things we write change, depending on purpose and audience. Learning to write means better understanding those changes. This course teaches students how to analyze and study writing, writing processes, and the ways different groups of people use writing to accomplish objectives, tasks, goals. Students will learn how to use language persuasively in specific situations and in several ways, preparing them to use writing and rhetoric in college, in their careers, and their lives. To ensure competence in oral communication, a speech component is included. Offered every semester. Prerequisite: ENG 110 (grade of C or higher) or passing score on the English Placement Test.


59

Required Texts:

1. Blevine, D. Brenda, Berberyan, Lilly, and Johnson, Alison M. Rhetorical Approaches to College Writing. Boston: Hayden McNeil, 2017. ISBN : 9780738082493

2. Achieve Writer's Help for Hacker 3rd edition ISBN 9781319131357

Student Learning Outcomes: Through successful completion of this course and its scaffolded assignments, students will:

1. Assess and describe the situations surrounding various kinds of writing to understand how authors write to meet a variety of goals at once. Along the way, you will interpret that writing for intended and unintended meaning (UE CT1).

2. Write multiple drafts of a document that incorporates feedback from peers, illustrates the creation of new ideas, and shows re-thinking of your existing ideas using the core values of personal development and excellence.

3. Analyze the language and documents used by groups of people who come together, establish their identity as a group, and achieve their combined goals.

4. Characterize various document types, known as genres, and identify trends and expectations in how those document types do the work—and reflect the thinking—of a writing community. This will help you assess different points of view, assumptions, and/or arguments (UE CT2).

5. Use rhetoric to create artifacts that meet specific goals and address specific audiences based on a variety of situations that call for writing. This will reflect the student’s ability to communicate effectively for a determined purpose (UE CC2).

6. Create documents that incorporate the collaborative, socialized aspects of writing yet avoid plagiarism by appropriately employing paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting of credible sources. You will decide how to make those incorporations using rigorous arguments based on criteria and evidence (UE CT3).

7. Use writing to build expertise, navigate roles, and motivate others toward action. Methods of Assessment:

Participation: 10% a. Pre-Test: (L.O. 1-5) b. Post-Test: (L.O. 1-5) c. Discussion Boards d. UE Key Assignment: Personal Statement:

Core Values: Personal Development, Excellence (Module 8) Module 1: Multimodal Text (L.O. 2-5) (QEP EFW2) 10% Module 2: Identifying Rhetorical Elements (L.O. 1, 2, 5-7); 10% Module 3: Rhetorical Approaches (L.O. 2, 3, 7); 10% Module 4: Discourse Communities (L.O. 2, 4, 6); 10% Module 5: Genres (L.O. 1, 3-6) Module 6: Audience Awareness & Language (L.O. 1, 2, 5);10% Module 7: Joining The Conversation (L.O. 4-7); 10% Module 8: Reflecting (L.O. 1, 4, 5, 7); 10% Oral Presentation (L.O. 1-5); 10% MacMillan Achieve Assignments; 10%

Grading Standards for Essays: See Syllabus Addendum Class Content (possible writing assignments):


60

Module One: Reading Actively/Rhetorically Readings in Achieve with MacMillan

Reading a Written Text Actively Reading and Analyzing Multimodal Texts

Sample Writing Assignment: Multimodal Text   Background & Purpose  For this assignment, you will design a document for other students at the institution to help them understand and implement the active/rhetorical reading strategies. The document should be appropriate for the Saint Leo students you know, and appropriate for placement in the CAVE, on the Library’s website, for example. Make your document helpful and approachable for the students you wish to reach.  Objectives 

Pay attention to conciseness and preciseness of language as well as words used and their meaning. 

Find ways to simplify and clarify complex ideas and present them to your audience.  Identify which software tools can best help you design a multimodal document.

Procedure  

1. List the active/rhetorical reading strategies identified (implicitly or explicitly) in the texts you read for this module. Identify the concepts or theories you had to figure out before making sense of their suggestions.

2. Decide the look, design, and platform for your document. What app works best for designing the kind of document you are making? Is there a

template available that can save you the trouble of designing the layout of the page? (Hint: Windows users might consider MS Publisher, and Mac users might consider Apple’s Pages. Each of those apps has plenty of available, creative templates to get you started.) 

What color scheme makes sense for what you are trying to do?  How can you share things you make in that app? (Hint: most apps can export or print

to PDF.) 

3. Decide what content goes where. What do the students you are writing to need to know to be able to read rhetorically?  In what order do they need to learn those things, and how will they navigate the

document?  What legal graphics would help them understand the concepts you are trying to teach

them?  Write your content and build your document. 

Your task for the assignment is to design a document for other students at your institution to help them understand and implement active/rhetorical reading strategies. End of Module Assessments:

a. 2 Pre-tests (Grammar, Punctuation) b. Homework (located in Achieve) c. Discussion Board Prompts/mini reflection d. Writing Assignment

Module Two: Rhetorical Foundations Chapter 1: Rhetorical Foundations—pp. 1-42. LibGuide: Sample rhetorical analysis of a text, in this case, a literary text (“Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen”) Sample Writing Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis


61

The IOR (on campus) will provide a sample of texts that may be used by students for this assignment. Online will have a more specific reading, such as Alice Wong’s “The Last Straw.” Background and Purpose  By now, you have seen the benefits of reading actively/rhetorically. Being able to read actively/rhetorically helps you make decisions about what to do with things you read and how to interpret an author’s ideas. For this assignment, your job is to explore the rhetorical situation surrounding a specific text by explaining the scene in which the text functions, identifying how and why the text came to be. You will show your ability to look beyond the content of the text and into the intentions of the author/rhetor and the expectations of the audience.  Compose a document in which you DESCRIBE (not just name) each of the following rhetorical elements in Wong’s writing: rhetor, audience, exigence, and constraints. Because this assignment is designed to check whether you understand the elements of rhetorical situations and can identify them in a text, keep your response brief and clear. Include enough information to show that you see how the elements of the rhetorical situation interact. Your analysis should give your classmates enough information to understand how the text fits into an existing conversation about its topic. Objectives 

Read the essay actively/rhetorically  Consider the effect intended by an author  Separate rhetorical elements from content  Demonstrate understanding of the vocabulary of rhetoric 

Procedure 

1. Make a list, identifying each of the elements of the rhetorical situation in which the text was created: rhetor, exigence, audience, constraints.

2. Get more specific. For each item on your list, include a description that is more like a paragraph and less like a sentence or two. For instance, a rhetor could be, “Walt Mossberg.” But a more relevant and helpful entry in this list would be, “Walt Mossberg, former principal technology columnist for The Wall Street Journal for twenty-two years and creator of the modern technology-product review. His decades of experience writing about consumer products makes him an authority when evaluating this latest product launch.”

3. Consider what you discovered about the article by doing this brief analysis. What do you now understand that you didn’t catch the first time you read the text? Add a brief concluding reflection to your writing that explains the value of doing this kind of analysis.

End of Module Assessments:

a. Homework (Achieve) b. Quiz(zes) (Achieve) c. Discussion Board Prompts/mini reflection d. Writing Assignment

Module Three:

Peer Reviewing and Reflecting Chapter 2: Re-Seeing Revision: A Process of Experimentation – pp. 109-15. Chapter 4: Viewing Peer Review as a Rhetorical Process – pp. 184-8. Achieve: Reflection A thorough peer review is essential to successful writing because it provides an opportunity for the rhetor to be alerted about how his or her message will be received by an audience. While participating in the peer review, you will not only help your classmates identify the strengths and weaknesses of their writing, but also come to a better understanding of your own writing. These undeniable benefits of peer reviews are the reason why writers of all experiences and levels allow others to preview their ideas as they seek opportunities to do the same for others. Sample Writing Assignment: Providing and Reading Feedback


62

In Module 2, you wrote a rhetorical analysis to show your classmates that you can identify the elements of a rhetorical situation. In this module, you will provide feedback to one of your peer’s writings by composing written answers to the questions about that writing. The format for your feedback is as follows:

THE ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORICAL SITUATION

a. Use your notes from class examples and discussion as well as additional readings on Rhetorical Situations to assess whether the writer is accurate in identifying the rhetor, audience, exigence, and constraints within the article.

b. Which elements could be more accurate and how? How could the writer be more specific?

c. Which elements require more development? What additional information is necessary to expand the required description of the element?

THE CONCLUDING SUMMARY

a. What are the discoveries about the article pointed out by the writer of the analysis? b. What is the new understanding of the article as pointed out by the writer? c. What value does the writer recognize in completing his/her analysis?

THE FORMAT

a. How appropriate is the grammar? b. How clear/readable is the formatting? c. How convincing were the author’s overall claims about this rhetorical situation and

why? d. Where could the analysis be strengthened? e. What impressed you most about this analysis? f. What needs the author’s attention most urgently?

Please, treat this review as a conversation you have with a classmate to assist him or her to the best of your abilities. End of Module Assessments:

a. Homework (Achieve) b. Quiz(zes) c. Discussion board prompts/mini-reflection d. Writing Assignment: Second Draft of Module 2 Writing

Module Four: Writing Within Groups: Discourse Communities  Dan Melzer, “Understanding Discourse Communities” Sample Writing Assignment: Discourse Community Analysis  Background and Purpose Select a group of people you believe meets John Swales’ six defining characteristics and answer this question: How does the group you chose exhibit the characteristics of a discourse community? Present your conclusions in a document showing that you understand the six characteristics of discourse communities and know how to apply them to groups as defining criteria. This assignment will help you understand what a discourse community is and how one of them functions. You will learn to think deeply about the use of written communication within a group, and you will examine how that group uses writing to achieve its goals. Objectives

Understand how language practices mediate group activities Examine the discourses and texts of different communities Understand how language plays a role in discourse and community Identify the relationship between language, identity, and authority Acquire tools for successfully responding to varied discourse conventions and genres

in different classes For this assignment, you will need to review the information on Discourse Communities. You are determining whether a group “counts” as a discourse community by checking if the defining


63

characteristics apply. Regardless of whether the group you choose is OR isn’t a discourse community, you’ll be able to articulate why. Before you write,

1. Brainstorm, as we did in class, several groups you are (or have been) in that you think might be considered discourse communities; and

2. Consider how those groups use text and language, then choose one group to study. In your writing,

1. show how the group, such as a club or a community, possesses or lacks each of the six defining characteristics from Swales’ definition and

2. find connections between characteristics to show how they help the group function. To make your paper exceptional, also

1. Identify which characteristics have greater priority than others, perhaps for group functioning or for new members seeking membership; and

2. Show how the combination of those six characteristics form the group’s sense of identity.


a. Homework (Achieve) b. Quiz(zes)—multiple choice c. Discussion Board Prompts/journal entry/mini reflection d. Writing Assignment

Module Five: Genres: The Shape of Communication https://writingcommons.org/section/genre/ The following is an example of an assignment combining the content of M5 and M6, so it is due at the end of Module 6, after the concepts of genre, audience, and purpose have been introduced to the students. Sample Writing Assignment: Genre and Rhetorical Situation Background and Purpose: Genre is linked to rhetorical situation, and the choice of genre is one a writer must carefully decide using a variety of factors: audience, exigence, constraints, and purpose – all factors in the rhetorical situation. Description: Use the same overall scenario to write a different genre for each rhetorical situation the scenario has created. The scenario is a car accident, which requires communication to different audiences and forces you to think about the rhetorical situation and how it changes based on your audience and genre. Procedure: In this exercise, you will analyze the ways conventions are used to communicate messages, the underlying assumptions associated with different genres, and the choices we must make when writing based on the audience for which we are writing. For all listed rhetorical situations below, stick to the details provided but tailor your writing appropriately. Write each piece to the specific audience, analyzing before and as you write. Consider your audience and how your genre shapes the writing you produce for each. Please, label each piece individually. The overall scenario is as follows: Earlier today you were in a car accident while driving your grandmother’s car on your way to take your Biology midterm. Luckily, you were not hurt, nor were any others, but your vehicle and another have significant damage. Since you were texting your friend while driving instead of paying attention, you ran through a red light, so the accident was your fault. Police responded to the scene, and your insurance company has been notified, and you were cited. Your grandmother’s car was towed away to get repaired. Use the following rhetorical situations: Rhetorical Situation #1 You now have to write a letter to your grandmother telling her about the accident. Write this in the genre of a letter. Some things to consider as you write:

What content should be included for this genre? (What information and details are relevant in this letter to your grandmother?)


64

What is the style of the language used? In what format is it written? How could I tell by looking at it that it is a letter?

Rhetorical Situation #2 Because of the car accident, you are missing your Biology midterm. Your professor is strict, and you are pretty sure he said, “if you miss the midterm or final, your grade is zero – no make-ups” at the beginning of the semester. You are stressed out! By the time the police clear the accident scene, the mid-term is over, and you are headed home. Write an email to your Biology professor, explaining what happened and appealing to him for another chance to take the mid-term or to make it up somehow. Write the email, considering the audience and the situation as well as the following:

What content should be included? What details are relevant? Or too much? What style of language should you use for this email? What else is appropriate?

Rhetorical Situation #3 Write a text message to a friend – you are finished at the accident scene and need a ride. Write this in the genre of a txt msg explaining what you need, why, and from where to where. Some things to consider:

What content should be included for this genre? (What info/details are relevant in a text message?)

What is the style of the language used in a text message to a friend? What format is it written in? How could I tell by looking at it that it is a text message?

Rhetorical Situation # 4 You are now writing about the accident in the diary/journal you keep to record your thoughts every night before you go to bed. You have had a rough day, and you’re trying to make sense of things before going to sleep. Write this in the genre of a “journal entry.” Some things to keep in mind:

What content should be included for this genre? What details are relevant? What is the style of the language used? Who is the audience? In what format is it written? How is it obviously a journal entry?

Rhetorical Situation #5 You are doing some online research about car accidents a few weeks after your accident happened because it had a big impact on you, even though you were unhurt. You stumble across a blog where people share their stories about how car accidents have impacted their lives. There is an open forum for anyone who wants to post an entry to do so. You read about some horrific accidents that left people with permanent damage or loss. You are struck by the fact that your car accident, while inconvenient and a bit scary, was nothing as bad as it might have been. You decide to tell your story. Write a blog entry detailing your experience and explaining its impact on you. Some things to keep in mind:

What content would you include in this genre? Why? What is the style of the language used? In what format is it written? What are the conventions of a blog? Who is the audience?

Rhetorical Situation #6 You are assigned an essay for your Psychology class on the topic of human behavior and what makes people change learned habits. The assignment requires that you indicate why the topic is important to you as the writer of it. You decide to write about distracted driving, and you include your story about texting and driving as the introduction, using this personal experience to set the stage for your essay and explain your interest in the topic. It is significant for you because the accident reminds you of another time in your life when you had a close call that left you with a greater sense of appreciation for life. But you still engaged in texting while driving, so it occurs to you that you didn’t learn the lesson. Write the introduction to this Psych essay, keeping the following in mind:

What genre are you writing in, and what are its conventions? Who is the audience, and what are their expectations?


65

What details are relevant to this introduction? What does this part of the essay need to do? How will you achieve that goal?

Reflection on Rhetorical Situation and Genre: Keep in mind that this Reflection Section will be the longest part of the entire assignment as it provides a comprehensive look at all the writing you have completed for it. Please, label this section clearly as “Reflection.” Reflect on the experience of writing in different genres for each rhetorical situation. Use the following prompts as a guideline:

How did you know what was appropriate for each genre? For each scenario, how did your audience impact what and how you chose to say? Compare any two scenarios and discuss the significant differences in rhetorical

situation (discuss purpose, audience, intended outcome, and appropriateness of writing style for each).

How does your understanding of genre, audience, and rhetorical situation influence the choices you make in writing?

What aspects of this assignment can you apply to writing assignments you are currently working on in any other classes? In other words, what did you learn by completing this assignment that you can now transfer to another writing situation? End of Module Assessments:

a. Homework (Achieve) b. Quiz(zes) (Achieve) c. Discussion Board prompts d. Writing Assignment

Module Six: Audience Awareness and Language Background and Purpose:  This exercise helps you understand that genre is linked to rhetorical situation, and that the choice of genre is one a writer must carefully decide using a variety of factors. Key to making the appropriate choice is audience, exigence, constraints, affordances, and purpose – all factors in the rhetorical situation. In order for you to write successfully beyond this classroom, you must understand how to make choices appropriate to the writing situation. Understanding the factors that determine the rhetorical situation and how genre and audience connect within each situation, will help you make choices that will lead to successful writing in other contexts. Description: Use the same overall scenario to write a different genre for each rhetorical situation the scenario has created. The scenario is a car accident which requires communication to different audiences and forces you to think about the rhetorical situation and how it changes based on your audience and genre.  Procedure:  In this exercise you will analyze the ways conventions are used to communicate messages, the underlying assumptions associated with different genres, and the choices we must make when writing based on the audience for which we are writing. For all listed rhetorical situations below, stick to the details provided but tailor your writing appropriately. Write each piece to the specific audience, analyzing before and as you write, how considering your audience and your genre shapes the writing you produce for each. Please, label each piece individually. The overall scenario is as follows:  Earlier today you were in a car accident while driving your grandmother’s car on your way to take your Biology midterm. Luckily, you were not hurt, nor were any others, but your vehicle and another have significant damage. Since you were texting your friend while driving instead of paying attention, you ran through a red light, so the accident was your fault. Police responded to the scene, and your insurance company has been notified, and you were cited. Your grandmother’s car was towed away to get repaired.


66

Use the following rhetorical situations: Rhetorical Situation #1 You now have to write a letter to your grandmother telling her about the accident. Write this in the genre of a letter, whichever of those you would use to communicate with Grandma. Some things to consider as you write: 

What content should be included for this genre? (What information and details are relevant in this letter to your grandmother?)

What is the style of the language used? What format is it written in? How could I tell by looking at it that it is a letter? 

Rhetorical Situation #2 Because of the car accident, you are missing your Biology midterm. Your professor is old and ornery, and you are pretty sure he said “if you miss the midterm or final, your grade is zero - no make-ups” at the beginning of the semester. You are stressed out! By the time the police clear the accident scene, the mid-term is over and you are headed home. Write an email to your Biology professor, explaining what happened and appealing to him for another chance to take the mid-term or to make it up somehow. Write the email, considering the audience and the situation as well as the following:

What content should be included? What details are relevant? Or too much? What style of language should you use for this email? What else is appropriate? 

Rhetorical Situation #3  Write a text message to a friend – you are finished at the accident scene and need a ride. Write this in the genre of a txt msg explaining what you need, why, and from where to where. Some things to consider: 

What content should be included for this genre? (What info/details are relevant in a text message?)

What is the style of the language used in a text message to a friend? What format is it written in? How could I tell by looking at it that it is a text message? 

Rhetorical Situation # 4  You are now writing about the accident in the diary/journal you keep to record your thoughts every night before you go to bed. You have had a rough day, and you’re trying to make sense of things before going to sleep. Write this in the genre of a “journal entry.” Some things to keep in mind: 

What content should be included for this genre? What details are relevant? What is the style of the language used? Who is the audience? What format is it written in? How is it obviously a journal entry? 

Rhetorical Situation #5  You are doing some online research about car accidents a few weeks after your accident happened because it had a big impact on you even though you were unhurt. You stumble across a blog where people share their stories about how car accidents have impacted their lives. There is an open forum for anyone who wants to post an entry to do so. You read about some horrific accidents that left people with permanent damage or loss. You are struck by the fact that your car accident, while inconvenient and a bit scary, was nothing as bad as it might have been. You decide to tell your story. Write a blog entry detailing your experience and explaining its impact on you. Some things to keep in mind: 

What content would you include in this genre? Why?  What is the style of the language used? What format is it written in?  What are the conventions of a blog? Who is the audience?

Rhetorical Situation #6 You are assigned an essay for your Psychology class on the topic of human behavior and what makes people change learned habits. The assignment requires that you indicate why the topic is important to you as the writer of it. You decide to write about distracted driving, and you include your story about texting and driving as the introduction, using this personal experience


67

to set the stage for your essay and explain your interest in the topic. It is significant for you because the accident reminds you of another time in your life when you had a close call that left you with a greater sense of appreciation for life. But you still engaged in texting while driving, so it occurs to you that you didn’t learn the lesson. Write the introduction to this Psych essay, keeping the following in mind: 

What genre are you writing in, and what are its conventions?  Who is the audience, and what are its expectations? What details are relevant to this introduction? What does this part of the essay need to do? How will you achieve that goal? 


a. Homework (Achieve) b. Quiz(zes) (Achieve) c. Discussion Board prompts d. Writing Assignment including reflection

Module Seven:

Module 7 — Communicating with Authority Chapter 3: Rhetorical Research – pp. 117-66 Sample Writing Assignment: Authority across Rhetorical Situations Background and Purpose For this assignment, you will explore how authors can create authority/ethos within a variety of writing environments. An awareness of authority in writing situations helps as you work to gain members in the discourse communities of your major. As a student, you may feel you don’t have authority/ethos in your field, but that shouldn’t stop you from writing as though you do. Using our Library’s Databases, find two online articles about the same subject/issue, written by/for two different discourse communities: reports of a scientific discovery written for scientists or for the general public, reports of a court trial written for interest groups that support or disagree with the decision, or announcements of the latest smartphone written for fans of Android or iOS devices. Compare the decisions made by the authors that accommodate the expectations of their respective audiences. Look at their word choice, their assumptions, their arguments, and their negotiation of authority present through textual signifiers of authority. Your job for this assignment is to draw conclusions about the differences you observe in the discourses. Your ultimate goal is to answer this: How and why do authors make adjustments for different discourse communities? Objectives

Analyze how writers navigate authority/ethos in various situations Identify textual signifiers of authority as listed in the “Writing with Authority” video Explain authorial decisions in terms of audience awareness and accommodation in the

reflection concluding your essay. Preparation For this assignment, you will need to read the “Ethos and Authority” LibGuide and view the videos included in Module 7. This will be very similar to what you wrote in the Module 2 Assignment, except you will be analyzing two, not just one article in order to compare them, and you will be including summaries, paraphrases, and quotations from your articles in order to illustrate your points. Each time you summarize, paraphrase, or quote the articles, you will be using in-text citations to cite these sources properly.

In your writing explain how the language and other rhetorical situation elements used by each author indicate the authors’ ability to respond to audience expectations.

Please, copy and paste the text of the two articles at the bottom of your paper.


68

Please, structure your comparison essay by beginning with the analysis of the first article, followed by the analysis of the second article, and concluding with a reflection answering the question: How and why do authors make adjustments for different discourse communities?


a. Homework (Achieve) b. Quiz(zes) (Achieve) c. Discussion Board Prompts/mini reflection d. Writing Assignment

Module Eight: Reflecting Sample Writing Assignments: Final Reflection Compose a comprehensive reflection of your achievements in the course, specifically focusing on, but not limiting yourself to, the course outcomes. Talk about what you read, wrote, understood, learned, not only about the content of the course, but also about yourself. Use all rhetorical strategies at your disposal and take advantage of the affordances provided by all the textual artifacts you have created this semester and utilize the content of the mini reflections you composed throughout the course to piece together this comprehensive document. This assignment will be presented to the class and will demonstrate your growth as a writer and a community member, thus showing your Personal Development and commitment to Excellence. End of Module Assessments:

a. Homework (Achieve) b. Oral Presentation c. Discussion Board Prompts d. Writing Assignment

Late Work/Attendance Policy: IOR SLU Grading Scale: IOR


69

UE Key Assessment Assignment ENG 121

Personal Statement, Module 8

Prompt:

Write a one-page double-spaced personal statement for admission to a professional school (medical, dental, veterinary, law or other) or graduate school that will persuade your audience that you are the candidate. Write to explain what key moment in your life influenced your decision to major in your discipline, how it has shaped you, and how your classes have prepared you for admission to the program(s) to which you are interested in applying. If you have had a personal challenge, be sure to explain how you have faced, overcome, or striven to overcome that challenge. Be sure to consider the following elements:

Audience Purpose


70

Appendix E: ENG 122—Master Syllabus

College of Arts and Sciences Department of Language Studies and the Arts

ENG 122: Writing and Research Fall/ Spring 20XX

Professor: IOR (instructor of record) list your name and title Course Number: ENG 122 (3 credits) (IOR change section #) Prerequisites: ENG 121 Classroom Location: IOR list building and room # (IOR delete row for online classes) Class Hours: IOR list days and times (IOR delete row for online classes) Office Location: IOR list building and room # (IOR delete row for online classes) Office Hours: IOR list days and times and by appointment Office Telephone: IOR list area code and telephone # E-mail: IOR list your e-mail address Location: IOR list your Center location

Course Description: This course will focus on writing and research from a rhetorical perspective by considering the audience, purpose, and function of the project. Students will identify a research question, develop it into a research proposal, write a literature review, research and complete an annotated bibliography, peer edit, and incorporate elements such as charts, diagrams, and/or tables if needed to clarify key points made. Offered every semester. 3 credits. Pre-requisite : Passing grade of C in ENG 121

REQUIRED TEXTS (IOR must use texts listed below):

For All Locations:

1. Achieve Writer's Help for Hacker 3rd edition ISBN 9781319131357 2. eBook An Insider's Guide to Academic Writing: A Rhetoric and Reader 2e by Susan Miller-

Cochran; Roy Stamper; Stacey Cochran, 2nd edition ISBN 9781319230760

1. Core Values: Through the mastery of the above learning outcomes, students will engage in the Saint Leo core values of integrity and excellence. Integrity: The commitment of Saint Leo University to excellence demands that its

members live its mission and deliver on its promise. The faculty, staff and students pledge to be honest, just and consistent in word and deed. Students will be fulfilling this mission by completing essays that inform the campus and outside communities.

Excellence: Saint Leo University is an educational enterprise. All of us, individually and collectively, work hard to ensure that our students develop the character, learn the skills, and assimilate the knowledge essential to become morally responsible leaders.


71

The success of our University depends upon a conscientious commitment to our mission, vision, and goals.

2. Learning Outcomes: Through successful completion of this course and its constituent assignments, students will:

1. Articulate specific, arguable research questions using critical thinking and problem-solving skills. 2. Assess documents as authors’ perspective, open for debate (UE CT 3). 3. Search, identify, assess, and use appropriate sources in their research project (UE CT 1). 4. Create an annotated bibliography with integrity and achieve excellence in following the

guidelines of a specific citation system (MLA, APA, etc) and using the research-support resources offered by the university.

5. Demonstrate critical thinking skills in student analysis of arguments for a research project (UE CT2).

6. Communicate effectively for a determined purpose and employ public-speaking skills through regular class discussion and presentation of Research Project (UE CC1, CC2).

3. Methods of Assessment: Research Project:

i. Research Question (LO 1) 5% ii. Research Proposal (LO 1, 2, 5) 10% iii. Literature Review* (LO 2, 3, 5, 6) 10% iv. Annotated Bibliography* (LO 3, 4)Core Value: Integrity 10% v. Rough draft of Research Paper 5% vi. Peer Review of Research Paper (LO 5) 5% vii. Research Paper (LO 1, 2, 3, 5) 15% viii. Oral Presentation of Research Project (LO 6) 10%

Participation: pre-tests, learning plan, and post-tests (LO 6) 5%

Discussions (LO 1, 5) 15%

MacMillan Achieve assignments and quizzes (LO 6) 10%

100%

*Key Assignments for QEP and ENG 121/122 assessment purposes.

Grading Standards for Essays: To be added by IOR

4. Class Content:

Module One: Reading and Writing Rhetorically and Thinking about the Research Question

a. 2 Pre-Tests: Reading Strategies, Reading Comprehension (Achieve) b. Review: Writing Process and Literacy c. Reading and Writing Rhetorically End of Module Assessments:

a. 2 Pre-tests (Achieve: Reading Strategies, Reading Comprehension) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Discussion Board


72

Module Two: Making Academic Arguments and The Research Question

a. Developing Arguments b. Developing Research Questions and Thesis Statements c. Writing the Research Question d. Reading and Writing in Academic Disciplines


a. Progress on Study Plan (Achieve) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Discussion Board d. Research Question

Module Three: Reading and Writing in the Disciplines and The Research Proposal

a. Reading and Writing in the Humanities b. Reading and Writing in the Social Sciences c. Reading and Writing in the Natural Sciences d. Reading and Writing in the Applied Fields e. How to write a research proposal End of Module Assessments:

a. Progress on Study Plan (Achieve) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Discussion Board d. Research Proposal

Module Four: The Annotated Bibliography and Planning the Written Body

a. Writing Annotations b. Understanding Documentation Systems c. Planning the project: outlining your research paper and source synthesis chart End of Module Assessments:

a. Progress on Study Plan (Achieve) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Discussion Board d. Annotated Bibliography

Module Five: Conducting Academic Research and The Literature Review

a. Searching for Sources: Databases, journal articles by discipline b. Choosing Primary and Secondary sources c. Evaluating Sources d. How to write a literature review: Introduction, body, conclusion End of Module Assessments:

a. Progress on Study Plan (Achieve) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Discussion Board e. Literature Review


73

Module Six: Drafting the Research Paper

a. Summarizing, Paraphrasing, and Quoting from Sources b. Moving from outline to draft of your research paper C. Drafting the written body


a. Progress on Study Plan (Achieve) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Discussion Board d. Complete draft of research paper

Module Seven: Peer Review of Research Paper

a. Conducting effective peer reviews b. Revising your draft End of Module Assessments:

a. Progress on Study Plan (Achieve) b. Quiz (Achieve) c. Peer reviews of completed research paper

Module Eight: Research Project, Oral Presentation:

a. Research Project Final Draft b. Oral Presentation End of Module Assessments:

a. Completion of Study Plan (Achieve) b. Two post-tests (Achieve) c. Oral Presentation d. Research Paper Final Draft

Late Work/Attendance Policy: To be added by IOR

SLU Grading Scale:

A 94-100% Exceptional

A- 90-93% Superior

B+ 87-89% Excellent

B 84-86% Very Good

B- 80-83% Good

C+ 77-79% Above Average

C 74-76% Average

C- 70-73% Below Average (Do not pass ENG 122)

D+ 67-69% Marginal

D 60-66% Poor

F < 60% Failure


74

*See Syllabus Addendum on COURSES/D2L for more University policies and information

UE Key Assessment Assignment: Integrity and Excellence

Annotated Bibliography

Research and provide an annotated bibliography of at least 5 sources from the following:

At least two sources from academic journals. At least two sources from reputable magazines in the field. A combination of primary and secondary sources used.

The annotated bibliography must adhere to the conventions of the citation format chosen.

Core Value—Integrity: Annotations represent the author, audience and accurately portray the author’s viewpoint.

Core Value: Excellence: Sources are reliable, authoritative and of high quality. Reputable secondary sources were used with relevant primary sources. Extensive use of sources throughout the project: secondary and primary


75

Appendix F: QEP Director Vitae

,

Chantelle MacPhee, Ph.D. Associate Professor, English; Chair, Department of Language Studies and the Arts 324 Saint Edward’s Hall, Saint Leo University, St. Leo, FL, 33178 Email: [email protected]

EDUCATION:

Ph.D. (English Literature), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, 2002 M.A. (English), University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, 1993 B.A. (English), 1st Class, University of PEI, Charlottetown, PE, Canada, 1992

QEP / WRITING DISTINCTIONS:

2012 Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Student Committee Award for Leadership, advising and teaching the QEP, Elizabeth City State University Writer, Strategic Enrollment Management Plan, Miami Dade College West Campus, May 2016. Writer, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Substantive Change document to become an independent campus of Miami Dade College with own Dean and President, May 2016. Proposal: Vision for Miami Dade College West Campus, June 2016.

QEP COMMITTEE EXPERIENCE:

Director, QEP: Read! Write! Transform! Saint Leo University, May 2020-present.

Co-Chair, SACS Substantive Change Committee, Miami Dade College West Campus, March 2016-July 2018. Advisory Board Member, Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC January 2014-December 2014. Co-Chair, Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Implementation Committee, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC, April 2011-May 2012. Committee Member, Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Implementation Assessment Committee, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC, April 2011-May 2012. SACS Representative, Department of Language, Literature and Communication, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC 27909, August 2009-2014.

Academic Affairs Handbook, Academic Affairs, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC 27909, July 2009-December 2014.

SACS Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Core Committee, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC 27909, May 2009-December 2014. SACS Writing Sub-Committee, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC 27909, August 2009-December 2014.

Co-Chair, SACS Faculty Handbook Committee, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC, March 2009-December 2014. SACS Editing Committee, Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC, March-August 2009.


76

Appendix G: Michael Neal Faculty Development Day Flyer


77

Appendix H: Focus Group Questions

1. What would you suggest could be added to your students’ written assessments in the course that would assist them in learning the discipline writing objectives associated with your accreditation bodies?

2. If students fall below expectations, what do you believe are some of the causes for this drop?

3. What solutions would you propose to remedy the drop?


78

Appendix I: Budget Approval Memo


79

Appendix J: QEP Support and Undergraduate Programs Identified


80


81

Documents

Quality Enhancement Plan Final 20210823 - Saint Leo, FL