-
An unattributed explanation of a meeting about the DRC among James Kinneavy, Linda Ferreira-Buckley, John Slatin, and John Ruszkiewicz. The faculty oppose the originally proposed leadership structure and agree on a sequence of writing courses and he establishments of the Writing Center and the Computer Research Lab. They agree recruiting is necessary but are reluctant to take funding away from the English Department. Finally, the announce their decision to nominate Faigley as the first dividison chair. The document includes several handwritten edits.
-
A status report assuring the English Department faculty that the Division of Composition would not be run by the Dean of Liberal Arts, that English Department graduate students would still be employed by the first-year writing program, and that English Department staffing would not be adversely affected by the new Division.
-
Unattributed document asserting that the DRC will reevaluate E 306 exemptions, support minority and special students, consider new courses, prioritize the training of primary and secondary English teachers, and explore ways to enhance the training of AIs. Additionally, it will investigate ways of evaluating its performance and will move quickly to computerize courses, open a computer writing research lab, and consider a writing center. Finally, faculty will take a role improving the University's substantial writing component courses.
-
A brief memo asking for one last meeting to discuss the report of the Division of Composition report to the English faculty, with particular questions about budget.s
-
A memo and report describing meetings among those on the committee on the DRC describing their conversations and points of consensus. The writers agree that the DRC should be democratically led and retain close ties to the English Department, but will have more control over the writing program than before. E 306 will use the same syllabus. The DRC will enhance pedagogical training, open a Computer Writing and Research Lab, establish a Writing Center, and help improve the University's Substantial Writing Component courses. The committee's next steps are a meeting with the English Department Executive Council and the unanimous nomination of a Division Chair. It is also committed to hiring additional faculty, although not at the expense of the English Department.
-
Items discussed: Puangmali's research proposal, consequences of the E 346K delay, Writing Lab director's appointment as a specialist
Faculty present: Ruskiewicz, Bertelsen, Byerman, Daniell, Holt
-
Items discussed: Textbook, AI supervision proposal E 106/206 description and use of the Writing Lab.
In attendance: Ruszkiewicz, LeClercq, McMurrey, Myers, Simon, Underwood, Westbrook, Daniell, Jolliffe, Trachsel
-
A report, titled "“The Current Status of English 306 Individualized Instruction," to the Freshman English Policy Committee on a the state of a E 306 course offering individualized instruction . The course was originally designed by Wittig, though this version is by Cameron. --designed primarily by Wittig.
-
A list of questions about the DRC's scope, its members, and its members' relationships with the English Department.
-
-
Unattributed list of desired resources and goals for a new DRC. The writer emphasizes that he or she does not want to hear any more "public decanal criticism of the English Department," and rather desires a clear articulation from the Dean about why the DRC is the best course.
-
A memo from Joseph Kruppa introducing a letter from William Cunningham. The letter explains Cunningham's intention to form an autonomous academic unit dedicated to writing instruction (DRC) and includes a proposal that details the unit's function.
-
The minutes of the University Council meeting where the Fowler report was deliberated and where its recommendations were approved in part.
Among the recommendations made to faculty council is the full implementation of the Undergraduate Writing Center for all students (not just those in DRC classes) and more faculty involvement across the university in writing instruction. There is controversy among the faculty about whether these and other proposed motions will finally improve writing at UT.
-
The "Fowler" report about undergraduate writing instruction across the university and the Substantial Writing Component initiative. A draft of the Fowler report without appendices
The report that many of the problems in SWC courses located in the 1987 report persist: decentralized, variable quality, not enough feedback on students’ writing, some departments not offering enough SWC courses and others making up the balance, limited resources The committee offers several recommendations to address these concerns.