A large group representing the English department attended the meeting to exchange ideas about the program proposal. Before that discussion began, the committee decided to meet in a long session next Monday, February 23 beginning at 5 pm.

Curtis Wood began by reminding us that a very preliminary proposal was presented at the General Education Faculty meeting at the end of January. This proposal consisted of four reports from sub-groups that offered ideas about the components of a new general education program. This proposal is the subject of ongoing development, however, the English faculty have expressed strong feelings about the role of their courses in this proposed program, so we wanted to hear from them right away. A central part of the job of this committee is to generate discussion and engage the faculty in new ways of thinking about general education and what general education could be at WCU. Our original charge invited us to re-examine general education from the ground up, without feeling limited by the present or past programs, and this has produced some new and different ideas.

We want to hear the concerns of the English faculty and have them ask any questions they have about the thinking that has produced our proposal. The committee, in turn, might have questions to ask of the English faculty. It is important to think of the entire proposal package, even though we are looking specifically at the parts that involve the English department. We must remember that we are involved in a long development, revision, and presentation process, the public part of which is just now beginning.

Department Head Jim Byer began by summarizing the English Department's concerns. He recognized the need for the committee to receive broad input from the many experts in the English department. Their concerns are not merely "territorial" except in the noblest concept, that of caring about our students' development in reading and writing, and the importance of the literary arts to liberal education. He admitted that before the General Education Faculty meeting, the department was in the dark about the work of the committee, as they had not actively pursued the minutes of meetings. They were taken aback by the radical restructuring of composition instruction that was presented in the program proposal, and wanted to become involved in the process of considering these changes, as they have many contributions to make. Members of the English department faculty are very knowledgeable and informed regarding composition instruction. Byer specifically mentioned the qualifications of several department members in the areas of freshman composition, writing across the curriculum, and writing development. They feel they are in an awkward position of comparing a program that they know well (the present general education program) with one that is vague and not clearly defined (the preliminary proposal). They are unclear about the role and form of the upper level writing course that might be taught in other departments. Writing courses offered by various departments might be attractive to students in those majors. For students whose majors don't offer an upper level writing course, there might be a "writing for careers" course taught by English. The English faculty have difficulty seeing points of resemblance between these two types of upper level writing courses. This is not the only way to get at writing in the upper level, and suggested we look at UNC Charlotte's program, which includes 6 hours of freshman composition and 6 hours of writing-intensive courses at the upper level.

The English department believes strongly in the need for 6 hours of freshman composition. Students need as much instruction in writing as possible. Byer asked Elizabeth Addison, head of the freshman composition program, to help the committee understand the two courses we presently have. She began by expressing enthusiasm for the learning communities component of the proposed program, because it offers opportunities for students to develop their writing. She said that the committee minutes expressed an understanding of English 101 as a place to teach basic mechanics of writing. There is certainly a need for this, but our students also need to do more reading, and our present freshman composition sequence is also committed to teaching writing as a tool for thinking, not just for expressing the results of thinking. English 101 students write about things they know and have encountered as a way to teach them to explain a concept and thus begin to explain their world. In English102, they begin to develop arguments, use persuasion, make assertions and support them with evidence, and learn to back up what they are saying. They also begin to learn proper use of research, use (and misuse) of electronic, Web, and library sources, and begin to become information literate. While freshman writing courses used to focus on literature because instructors enjoyed teaching it, they now allow the content to be flexible and focus on the writing process. Thus, some of the content of a freshman seminar course is in English 101 already: the idea of student's place in the world and use of personal experiences as source material.

Gary Pool asked what percent of freshman take English 101 & 102? Some students delay taking 102, but virtually all freshman take either 101 or 102H their first semester (102H if they place out of 101). There are about 48 sections of 101 and 12-15 sections of 102 in the fall semester, and about 46 sections of 102 in the spring. Students who receive credit for both 101 and 102 through their high schools, or who place out by taking AP tests, are the only ones who would not take at least 102H during their freshman year. Barbara Lovin asked how many of these freshman composition sections are taught by full time faculty. About 15-20 of the 48 sections of 101 are taught by full time faculty. The English department depends heavily on part-time instructors, but many of these are part-time in name only, and are as qualified as the full time faculty. All full-time faculty are involved in teaching freshman composition every year. The department simply does not have enough full time faculty to teach all of English 101 and 102.

Many of the freshman seminar concepts are already covered in English 101, and others could be met by the use of learning communities instead of in a freshman seminar. However, assessment activities that have been targeted for a freshman seminar would not fit into English 101. Jim Nicholl suggested that block registration of English 101 with a perspectives course and perhaps one other course could create opportunities for topics from other courses to be the subject of writing in the composition course. This could be done in the spring also with English 102, where team teaching or team planning could promote connections between the courses and assure distribution of writing opportunities. A freshman seminar is an idea that could make WCU's program different, and we should consider what has been done with freshman seminars at University of South Carolina. Newt Smith mentioned he has taught USI 130 and had students grouped by inclination toward writing majors (English, Communication, languages). If these same students were grouped in USI and English 101 classes, they could be doing activities that connect the focus of the two classes. Elizabeth Addison noted, however, that these linkings don't adequately address the developmental qualities of writing. Students don't get where they need to be after just English 101, so even linking a freshman seminar and English 101 in the same semester won't address the development over time of students' writing. Jim Byer noted that writing intensive courses could be in the major or in perspectives and do not need to be separate courses that thus add to general education hours. Terry Nienhuis applauded the effort to incorporate writing across the curriculum, but noted that to do writing across the curriculum within general education (only) might possibly dilute both. Writing across the curriculum should be University-wide. Steve Eberly noted that if general education is extended across all four undergraduate years, then writing across the curriculum in general education is a genuine effort to enforce writing throughout the college experience. Marsha Holmes shared interest in extending general education to all four years, but noted that an upper level writing course is a "top-down" approach. Teaching writing needs to be done from the inside out and from the ground up, starting in the freshman year and extending genuinely through the major. This was the source of concern about taking three hours out of the writing instruction in the freshman year.

Curtis Wood noted that it was the desire of the program to address developmental skills throughout the program. By the junior year, students are better able to appreciate the need and use of writing in their major. Students are more motivated to improve writing when they have the context of their major to write about. But this upper level course would be a revisiting of writing, not the only place it should be happening. If we include writing across the curriculum, we must provide a structure to make it imperative. We would want this new structure to create a mandate that writing across the curriculum will fill in between freshman composition and the upper level writing course. Does the current atmosphere, including the computer requirement, create an environment where writing across the curriculum can be done? It will require a serious effort by the University in terms of resources, management, effort and commitment. It is not effective to try to change too many institutional and cultural habits at one time. We must change a few things of great importance. So, we need to decide what are the important changes, even if they will be hard to do and need considerable support, and do these changes thoroughly and well, and enforce them. Is changing the approach to teaching writing one of the changes we want to make? If so, how do we make this change effectively?

Jim Nicholl noted that the Fundamental Principles do not adequately emphasize the skills of reading critically and accurately. Further, the idiosyncratic nature of our present program is inconsistent with the community college articulation agreement and makes transferring into and out of WCU difficult, which may have an effect on enrollment. The committee should look carefully at this, as we do not want to be too far out of step with other schools, both community colleges and other state institutions. We don't want to discourage students from coming to WCU.

Mary Warner asked where Literature was in our program. The Perspectives categories are confusing; History is separate from the Social Sciences, but what are Humanities without Literature?

Jim Byer asked if we could continue this discussion, as we were out of time for today's meeting and there are other issues to discuss. Curtis Wood noted that the actual proposal document has not, in fact, been released yet. We do not want the rest of the faculty to think we are responding to the English department when others have not even been informed of the proposal yet. We will be glad to continue the discussion, and, shortly, when the proposal has been released, is the right time for this discussion. We are at the beginning of drafting the program, and will clearly not finish this year, as there is much more input we want to have. In the end, if we have done general education really well, we should end up rethinking our major programs as well.

Is it possible to change the number of hours in general education? Theoretically it is, but some programs are limited by accrediting agencies. Chancellor Bardo told the committee early in the process that changing the number of hours significantly would be very hard to do.

The committee will meet on Monday in a long session to consider the revised proposal that has been distributed, to further consider the administrative proposal, and to consider the input of the English department at today's meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Nory Prochaska, recording secretary