1. Advanced Writing Requirement Proposal
Submitted by the Faculty Standing Committee on General Education

2. Advanced Writing Requirement (AWR) Criteria: Revised 04/20/2017
Drafted by the Working Group on Advanced Writing, a sub-set of the General Education Committee, and revised in Full Committee
Rationale:
To fulfill the responsibility given to the General Education Committee by the Senate in Resolution to develop criteria for reviewing courses that would provide a second-level writing experience required for graduation
To build upon the basic writing instruction offered by COMP 100 (or its equivalent for transfer students)
To ensure that all graduating SUNY Oneonta students, including transfer students, have dedicated training in advanced writing
To respond to the 2015 SUNY Student Opinion Survey’s findings that SUNY Oneonta was in the upper rankings on frequency of writing assignments but ranked 11th out of 12 comparable schools in supporting development of writing skills
To better position SUNY Oneonta graduates for employment
Whereas it has been resolved (in Senate Resolution ) that all students seeking a bachelor’s degree from SUNY Oneonta will successfully complete any one of a number of courses approved by the college to fulfill an Advanced Writing Requirement before graduation

3. Be it resolved:
That the following criteria will be used to develop and approve courses to fulfill the Advanced Writing Requirement for graduation with a Bachelor’s degree from SUNY Oneonta
Primary Course Criteria:
An AWR course may approach writing in either of two ways.
In Approach #1, the AWR may support further development of the general writing skills introduced in COMP 100, with emphasis on strategies for
expository writing,
or argumentative writing,
or research based writing.
In Approach #2, the AWR may focus on the writing conventions of a field of study, with emphasis on
technical writing,
or professional writing,
or discipline-specific writing.

4. Additional Course Criteria:
To distinguish between courses that qualify as AWR courses and those that include writing assignments only as assessments of students’ content knowledge, AWR courses must show that, in addition to the general objectives above, students will
receive explicit instruction in writing.
This might include how to write a thesis, how to structure an essay, how to incorporate source material or evidence, how to analyze source material, how to employ the academic voice and discourse appropriate for the discipline, or how to improve grammar and mechanics to achieve clear communication.
revise their work in response to instructor and (if desired by the professor) peer feedback.
The revision component does not require professors to collect and comment on complete drafts (though they may). Thesis workshops or reviews of outlines, bibliographies, or partial drafts (for example) are considerably more efficient for professors, while remaining of great benefit to students.
Completion of COMP 100 (or its equivalent for transfers) will be a pre-requisite for any AWR course.

5. Recommendations:
That since the AWR is designed to help students develop writing skills that will support them throughout their college studies, the AWR be taken as early as possible in the student’s undergraduate career.
That for the above reasons, approval of senior seminars and other capstone will require compelling justification for AWR designation
That the administration support faculty who choose to take part in the AWR through faculty development to create meaningful and effective strategies for integrating writing instruction into their courses
That the Faculty Center, CADE, and available online tutorials be sufficiently funded to become useful supports in the AWR initiative
That a simple process be developed by which AWR instructors might refer students at-risk in writing skills to CADE for support (dependent on CADE’s resource availability)
That AWR courses have low enrollment caps in order to facilitate writing instruction (ideally, no more than 20 students/section)

6. 7. That upon approval of this proposal, a joint action-subcommittee of (and reporting to) the two faculty standing committees of General Education and Curriculum be formed, consisting of
The original working group that drafted the AWR
b. Members of the Curriculum Committee and the General Education Committee representing departments that have historically been heavily involved in writing initiatives or the WS2
c. Representation from writing specialists in CADE
d. Ex-officio representatives of relevant administrative offices to facilitate implementation of the AWR
That this joint action-subcommittee take responsibility for
a. Finalization of the submission protocol for approval of AWR courses
b. Consultation with departments to clarify requirements and procedures
c. Consultations with Student Association and other student groups about primary writing concerns and challenges
d. Collection of submissions for AWR approval and vetting of courses

7. 6100 students needing the course (average size of student body)
Guesstimate of needed seats per semester to have the AWR be successful:
6100 students needing the course (average size of student body)
divided by the 8 semesters they are here
is 763 seats per semester
In the final determination of the average number of AWR seats necessary per semester, we will have to take into consideration which courses will be needed by the general student population and also the number needed by students in their specific majors. This is part of the work to be done by the transitional Action Committee. (Recommendation 7)
Information courtesy of Eileen McClafferty, Academic Advisement

8. WS2 Enrollments for Fall, 2016, and Spring, 2017
F’16: 27 courses, 57 sections, total 1367 seats S’17: 32 courses, 58 sections, total 1312 seats