1 10 26 https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/e37eca36612413f20f930028613f1f80.pdf 83dae66c4b9a427f9219575b391e3b7d PDF Text Text Paper Part 1: Outline & Annotated Bibliography - Evaluation _____/22 = ___/10 The purpose of this assignment is to answer the question: “How can sustainability principles be integrated within tourism planning for rural places?” Your outline should contain the following elements (with as much detail as possible): A. Introduction (purpose, organizational statement) (2) B. Body of Paper (4) (using headings and providing point form notes on content associated with each section) 1. Annotated bibliography; this should contain: (10) - An introduction to the literature you have found - A reference for each article in APA style, - A summary of the article (no more than 150 words), which includes its purpose and findings - There should be AT A MINIMUM 15 academic sources - A summative paragraph about what you learned 2. Discussion related to the purpose of your paper (2) C. Conclusion (2) D. Comments (writing style = 2) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assignments Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDy6p1WE55sYnKfTER1_M0Q93TtqBINpbvgv_mBbHlw/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 3733 Evaluation Sheet and Outline" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 3733 Evaluation Sheet and Outline</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 3733 Evaluation Sheet AB & Outline Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 3733 Annotated Bibliography Assignment Evaluation OUTD 3733 Outline Paper https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/5ff93291a865bae7c0f261924a49e762.pdf 9dccd2867d76e03d2664fdb8a43ee9b4 PDF Text Text School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism OUTD 4733 Rural and Community Tourism Development UPDATED 2016 Fall Instructor Information Instructor: Dr. Rhonda Koster Office Location: SN2002AA Telephone: 343-8440 E-mail: rkoster@lakeheadu.ca Office Hours: Thursdays 1-4:30 Course Identification Course Location: SN2009 Class Times: Monday and Wednesday 1 – 2:30 Course Description/Overview From the University Calendar - An advanced course that examines the theories and issues of community-based tourism development. Students will apply knowledge and skills gained from OUTD 3733 in specific local, regional and national contexts. In addition to case study analysis in workshops and seminars, students will be given the opportunity to work with community organizations to develop and/or implement tourism related plans within the region. Rural and Community Tourism Development provides students who have taken (or are taking) OUTD 3733, the opportunity to explore, at an advanced level, the practice and theory of tourism planning in rural regions. Community service learning is core to the course, and provides students with the opportunity to work with community organizations to develop and/or implement tourism related plans within the region. Course Learning Objectives Upon completion of the course, students will be able to: • • • • • • Respond effectively to Requests for Proposals, from community organizations Develop a proposal to complete a tourism related project Undertake and complete research independently, with limited guidance Undertake data collection, analysis and synthesis related to a tourism project Provide a final document of their study/project Effectively present a tourism project for evaluation to a community partner 1 – 2016 Fall �• • • • Apply theories and models of tourism development and planning to a real life situation Reflect on the application of theory to practice Develop a working relationship, and an opportunity to liaise, with a professional body Develop professional skills within a team to accomplish a major project Course Resources Course Website(s) • Course website is located on D2L, accessed through myCourseLink Required Course Text • All course materials are located on the course web site Assignments and Evaluations ******All assignments to be submitted via D2L*******UPDATED!! Assignment Team Based Assignments RFP Proposal – Presentation RFP Document and Ethics Submission Final Project – Presentation Final Project Document Team Meeting Submissions Individual Based Assignments All About Me Content Workshop Presentation Evaluations (2.5% each) Date Wednesday October 5th Friday October 7th Wednesday November 28th To determine as a class – Dec As outlined on course schedule Friday September 9th Sign-up Sheet RFP Presentation Monday October 3rd Final Project Presentation Wednesday November 28th & Monday 30th Value 70% 5% 20% 5% 30% 10% 30% 5% 20% 5% Late Assignments & Attendance Attendance Policy: Students are required to come prepared, arrive on time and attend all classes. This class will not work to your advantage, or that of your mates, if everyone does not attend on a regular basis. Due Date Policy: Assignments are due on the date stated within the syllabus. NO LATE assignments will be accepted and there will be NO EXCEPTIONS. This course is designed around the completion of REAL projects that community organizations are depending on and therefore each student/group is required to complete his/her assignment on time. If you know now that you cannot make any of these deadlines, discuss the situation with me. If there are serious medical or emergency circumstances that arise, you must provide appropriate documentation. 2 – 2016 Fall �Tentative Course Schedule Week/Date 1/ Sept 7 2/ Sept 12&14 3/ Sept 19&21 Monday No Class Wednesday Course Introduction Guest Speaker: Executive Director, Tourism Northern Ontario NOTE Room Change RC2003 Lecture: Planning Models 1 (Rhonda @ Conference) Team Meeting: RFP Work Plan & Team MOU submitted via Dropbox 11:30pm Lecture: RFPs, Presentation, Ethics Reading: FedNor, 2009. Writing Effective Requests for Proposals: A Guide for Northern Ontario’s Tourism Industry Sept 19 4/ Sept 26&28 Last day to add or drop classes Lecture: RFPs, Presentation, Ethics Team Meeting: RFP Presentation DRAFT submitted via Dropbox 11:30pm 5/ Oct3&5 Oct 10-14 6/ Oct17&19 Lecture: Planning Models 2 Group RFP Presentations Fall Break Lecture: Community-based Tourism Lecture: Issues and Challenges in Rural Tourism 7/ Oct24&26 8/ Oct31&Nov2 Lecture completion Student Workshop 9/ Nov7&9 Nov 7 10/ Nov14&16 11/ Nov21&23 12/ Nov28&30 Dec 5 Student Workshops Team Meeting: Project update of work Alischa B. - Aboriginal tourism plan submitted via Dropbox 11:30pm Sofi C. - Experiential Tourism Student Workshops Student Workshops Meredith D. – Authenticity Sara L. - Destination Planning Karter S. – Contemporary & Future Jake O. – Best Practices in Tourism Trends Last Day to drop classes without Academic Penalty Student Workshop (Rhonda @ Conference) Duncan G. – Tourism as part of Team Meeting: Final Project update of economic development work plan submitted via Dropbox 11:30pm Tom B. - Product Development Lecture: Team Meeting: Final Project Presentation Final Project Elements DRAFT submitted via Dropbox 11:30pm Group Presentations of Project Group Presentations of Project Student evaluations submitted via Dropbox Student evaluations submitted via Dropbox Last class Wrap Up Team Meeting: Final Project Document DRAFT submitted via Dropbox 11:30pm 3 – 2016 Fall �Assignments Team Work Assignments = 70% Over the course of the semester, a group of 3 students will be required to complete a tourism planning project that has been requested by Tourism Northern Ontario (TNO) (Regional Tourism Organization 13 A, B & C). Through completion of these projects, you will be provided with an opportunity to learn about the various aspects of tourism planning, research, project writing and management. You will be evaluated by both myself and designated TNO staff on your professionalism and the final product. At the end of the term you should have a completed project and evaluation that can become part of your ‘portfolio’ of professional activities associated with your university career. There may be field trips required to conduct field research for the projects, and this will be conducted outside of class time and organized by the groups. Some compensation will be provided. Request for Proposals (RFP) Proposal – Presentation (5%) Due: Wednesday October 5th Your group will be given a Request for Proposals (RFP) that pertains to the project that your group will be required to complete over the course of the semester. Each group is required to give a 15 minute presentation on your RFP proposal to the class. Based on feedback you receive on your presentation, the group will have time to make changes and improvements before handing it in. RFP Document and Ethics Submission (20%) Due: Friday October 7th, 11:30pm, Dropbox Based on the RFP that your group is working on, you are required to write a proposal that outlines how you plan to undertake the study necessary to meet the objectives and scope of study for the RFP. Your group must complete: 1. A proposal (a document that outlines your project, the elements of your project, methodologies, timelines) 2. An ethics review form (required by LU policy – forms provided on D2L) Details of these documents will be provided in class. Example is provided on D2L Final Project – Presentation (5%) Due: Monday November 28th and Wednesday November 30th Each group will be required to prepare and give a 20 minute presentation on their final project to the class and potentially TNO staff. Your presentations should be information rich, but also visually rich. More details will be provided in class. Feedback provided on your presentation should be used to improve the final document. Final Project - Document (35%) Due: To be determined as a class – sometime in December Each group will be completing a final document that provides all the information that is required by TNO as provided in your RFP. 4 – 2016 Fall �These documents should be information rich, and written in a professional (i.e. not academic) structure and manner. Details will be provided in class. Examples are on D2L. This final project is due, for my evaluation, in December – date to be determined as a class. This document will be marked by me and your final grade will be developed based on this submission. You are required to then complete any changes requested by me and produce a final good copy by January 15th, 2017. This document will then be sent to TNO for their use and review. This process ensures that your best work will be provided to TNO, as your, my and ORPT’s reputations are at stake. At that time, TNO will provide each group with an evaluation letter of your work. This letter can then be used (providing it is positive!) in your professional portfolio. Team Meeting Submissions (10%) Due: As determined on the course schedule Given the volume and quality of work expected for each project, and the difficulties often associated with trying to find time to meet outside of class, 6 class times (called Team Meetings) have been set aside to work on your projects. During these classes, I will be available to meet with each group to answer questions and provide assistance. For each team meeting, a “deliverable submission” will be required that illustrates the group’s progress on their project. These are outlined on the course schedule, and should be submitted via Dropbox by midnight of the Team Meeting day. Details will be provided in class. All students are required to attend Team Meeting classes. Students are expected to be in class and using the time allotted to work on the projects. If a student misses more than one Team Meeting class without notifying me, they will be removed from the project team and will be required to complete the same project on their own. A Note on Group Work and Marking allocations: It is the responsibility of students to let me know if there are any group conflicts, as soon as they arise. These projects are time consuming and difficult, and require the commitment of all individuals within the group. I will do my best to help group members find a solution to issues. If, however, no consensus can be reached, I will allocate the division of work, and each person will receive an individual mark (based on the percentages indicated), and individual evaluations of their work by TNO staff. Individual Work Assignments = 30% All About Me (5%) Due: Friday September 9th, 11:30pm The purpose of this assignment is to help me learn more about you, with the aim of understanding your needs as a learner within this course. The assignment is available through D2L, must be completed within the document and submitted through Dropbox. 5 – 2016 Fall �Content Workshop (20%) Due: Dates are based on a signup sheet to be circulated in class Workshop Outline & link to reading must be submitted via email to Rhonda ONE WEEK PRIOR to your workshop date Each student is responsible to lead one workshop based on a topic selected from the list provided – the topic can only be covered once. If you have another idea for an appropriate topic, please clear it with me first. Workshop Topics: 1. Special Event/Conference Tourism Planning 2. Medium and Small Businesses and Tourism 3. Tourism Innovation 4. Destination Planning 5. Regional Planning 6. Tourism Marketing 7. Niche markets in Tourism 8. Experiential Tourism 9. Best Practices in Tourism 10. Tourism as part of Economic Development 11. Strategies for working with community/stakeholders 12. Authenticity in tourism 13. Product Development in Tourism 14. Contemporary and Future Trends in Tourism 15. Aboriginal/Indigenous Tourism Elements of the workshop include • Research and prepare a workshop on the chosen topic – you can organize the workshop in whatever way you are comfortable and feel is appropriate to provide learning opportunities for your classmates • The workshop must connect the topic to your project and must be interactive with the class (for example, ask questions of the group based on readings etc) • Each student will have approximately 30 mins for their workshop • You must prepare and provide to me, one week in advance of your workshop:  an outline, which includes a list of resources (readings, web pages etc),  a link to or PDF of one required reading for the entire class Elements of evaluation • You must provide me copies of your outline and powerpoint or other materials that were used (D2L) • Your evaluation will be based on the quality of the workshop and the materials supplied, the connection of the topic to your project and interaction with the class NOTE: All students are responsible for completing the provided readings, and participating in the workshop, by being able to respond to the presenter and asking informed and thoughtful questions. 6 – 2016 Fall �Presentation Evaluations – RFP and Final Project 2.5% each (5%) Due: RFP Presentation Monday, October 3 Final Project Presentation Wednesday, November 28th and 30th Students will be provided with a presentation evaluation form that must be completed for each group presentation, in class and handed in. The feedback must be constructive and aid the presenting group in improving their hand-in submissions. Grading Scheme An evaluation rubric is provided for presentations and document submissions on D2L Course Policies Attendance Policy: Students are required to come prepared, arrive on time and attend all classes. This class will not work to your advantage, or that of your mates, if everyone does not attend on a regular basis. Everyone must attend Team Meeting Classes – missing more than one Team Meeting Class without first contacting Rhonda will result in your removal from the team and require you to complete the project on your own. Due Date Policy: Assignments are due on the date stated within the syllabus. NO LATE assignments will be accepted and there will be NO EXCEPTIONS. This course is designed around the completion of REAL projects that community organizations are depending on and therefore each student/group is required to complete his/her assignment on time. If you know now that you cannot make any of these deadlines, discuss the situation with me. If there are serious medical or emergency circumstances that arise, you must provide appropriate documentation. Collaboration/Plagiarism Rules Students are expected to work collaboratively and submit project work as a team. For individual assignments, students are expected to submit work that has been independently completed. Students are required to know the University policies regarding plagiarism and academic dishonesty. Please be aware that the minimum penalty for a student guilty of plagiarism and or cheating is a mark of zero for the work concerned. University Policies All students are to be aware of and adhere to the following Lakehead University and School policies, all found on the ORPT webpage under Student Resources: • Student Code of Conduct, Academic Misconduct, Accommodation for Students with Disabilities 7 – 2016 Fall �• Ethics for doing research with Humans – all student projects that include human participants requires ethics approval, following the Research Ethics process • ORPT Culture of Respect Additional Information All required reading and supplementary materials for the course are provided on D2L. 8 – 2016 Fall � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assignments Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ptaqBA4ZyPrM55fKkz53HqJMfrfO4U-_2dI62QyyvP4/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 4733 Syllabus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 4733 Syllabus</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 4733 Syllabus Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 4733 Assignment OUTD 4733 Syllabus https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/26e6b189cf7bed430d95e3e4fb04fecf.pdf bdeac026c28e98e42d9cee4abe84d347 PDF Text Text Writing Level – First year Department or Faculty – Environmental Studies Resource Type 1 – Essay/Term Paper Assignment Resource Type 2 – Rubric Resource Type 3 – Peer Review Information and Template GEOGRAPHY 1170, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS TO SUCCEED IN WRITING ON RESEARCH We have four steps to take you through before you put the final draft of a paper together. Invariably your career as a student will have you end up with “the night before it’s due” syndrome…but staring at a blank screen is no fun when you have a looming deadline and a ticking clock! Our four steps should become a natural way to avoid that syndrome every time you are assigned a paper that requires academic- and/or professional-level research. Here we will practice them in a formal fashion for grades in the lab mark along the way (see below). Your goal is to work in teams of four to six to put together an information set in a website design to address an environmental issue, similar to what British Columbia MLA’s Andrew Weaver did for the controversial wolf cull in that province’s effort to recover struggling mountain caribou herds. http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2015/10/24/caribou/ As for any environmental issue, complexity demands several approaches to the literature that Dr. Weaver (a former University of Victoria professor and Canada Research Chair) has subtitled. The subtitled sections we envision in your website design, which is the final step, should lend themselves well to separating group work into individual efforts that will be most of the grade. Here are some environmental issues to work with (you’re free to sub in your favourite for me and the group to agree on as the basis for this assignment): 1. Where to put windfarms for minimum environmental and social costs? 2. How to approach urban geese? 3. What is an “overpopulation”? (In the sense of “too many” cormorants, white-tailed deer, etc.) 4. What are the implications of not cutting our “annual allowable cut” from our forests? 5. What should the size limit be on a “clear-cut”? 6. What’s the solution to “fishing down” our marine food web? 7. Are the Alberta oil sands part of a sustainable economy? 8. Should we be fishing in our National and Provincial Parks? 9. To what extent should small, rural communities be supported in Canada? 10. How to save Canada’s Carolinian forest? The four steps to preparing a good paper: �1. 2. 3. 4. The annotated bibliography The structural outline The peer review The final revision Normally, these steps are your own responsibility. This time, we will assign grades: 2 marks for booking a research consultation with the Liaison Librarian for the Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Janice Mutz. and completing the annotated bibliography by October 21, 2 marks for the structural outline by October 28, each based on your subtitled section; then 2 marks for the peer review of the website design to be done on November 4, and 4 marks for the final product, in which we will split the marks over your subtitled section and the overall design. 1. The annotated bibliography The annotated bibliography will be explained by Janice Mutz, Liaison Librarian, during your visit with her. Below is a link to a helpful resource from the University of Toronto: http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/annotated-bibliography The assignment is due October 21. You must show at least seven academic or professional references. 2. The structural outline The next page has the rubric on which we will grade what you have prepared as an outline for your portion of the overall website design, your subtitled section that addresses a component of the discussion on the environmental issue. The best way for many people to start writing as the annotated bibliography is underway is to use a draft introduction to organize approach to the paper. Your instructors and the writing coaches will look for your draft introduction (we will assign it 15 of the 40 marks in the rubric). It should have (following the Writing Manual and Style Guide for the Faculty of Natural Resources Management): • • • • A clear identification of the subject of your section of the website, including any background material relevant to the topic or references to previous sections of the website, as planned. Evidence of your thesis, the controlling idea that will guide the writing in this section. Definition of any key terms or place names, species descriptions, etc. that will be necessary to understand the writing that will come after the introduction. A statement of the planned organizational structure. Since the introduction acts as a blueprint for the section, you need to indicate the structure your section will follow. Often you can indicate your plan with a statement of the major points (or subtopics) you will discuss. �Below the draft introduction, your instructors will look for the evidence that will be discussed in a more complete draft of the writing. That counts for 25 of the 40 marks on the rubric. Essentially, this step creates a reorganized version of the annotated bibliography that begins to set up the paper. The assignment is due October 28. The rubric is on the next page. �Weight on mak OUTLINE COMPONENTS WEAK DEVELOPING PASS PROFICIENT Introduction is general or vague and unclearly related to thesis. Introduction is focused and clear but not well related to thesis. Introduction is focused, clear and well related to thesis. Introduction is focused, clear and well related to thesis. Material is well researched and accurate. Thesis statement limited to topic. Thesis statement provides unclear focus. Thesis statement is clearly focused and defensible. Thesis statement is clearly focused, defensible and compelling. Two to four subtopics are listed. Two to four subtopics are listed appropriate to thesis statement. Suggested subtopics deal effectively with the thesis statement. Suggested subtopics deal effectively and exhaustively with the thesis statement. Information references the subtopics but not clearly. Relevant information clearly references the subtopics. Relevant information clearly and exhaustively references the subtopics. DRAFT INTRODUCTION 1 1 1 Introduction of topic: Relevant history and background information, definition of key terms, if necessary. Thesis statement: State the topic and the focus of your investigation. Use sentence form and ensure that the statement is defensible. Organizational structure: List the subtopics you will use. (Usually 2 to 4 subtopics are appropriate for a 5 to 8 page essay.) PLANNED SUPPORT OF THESIS 3 For each subtopic, list some information/evidence you will use to develop your thesis. Information is provided but not clearly referencing the subtopics. 1 List these pieces of evidence in a logical order. No effort to provide order. A logical order is suggested. A logical order uses key words from the thesis statement. A logical order compellingly uses key words from the thesis statement. 1 Provide an in-text citation (author date) for each piece of information/evidence. Citations are provided but incomplete. Complete citations are provided. Complete and accurate citations are provided. Complete and accurate citations are provided free of style errors. TOTAL 40 Points assigned (as per rubric) 2 3 4 5 �3. The peer review The goals of a peer review are to: 1) improve writing skills; 2) strengthen editing skills; and 3) develop a quality final paper. The peer reviewer is assessing the writing for 1) content, 2) organization, 3) grammar and style and 4) formatting. The instructors for the course will not be marking the draft, nor will peer reviewers assign a mark. Do not mark up the peer’s paper; instead, you will use the form on the attached page. Peer reviewers will be marked on their effort as shown on the page submitted to the instructor. The assignment is due November 4 (in class). To gain the most out of the peer review process, authors should hand in a draft that is as complete as possible. Authors will get the draft back with a second copy of the peer review form at the end of class. This procedure will allow time to revise papers based on the peer-reviewer’s comments and submit the final draft on November 11. STEPS FOR PEER REVIEWERS: 1. Read the whole paper at least once before you begin your feedback. 2. Checking formatting against the Writing Manual and Style Guide for the faculty. 3. Write a summary of your peer review addressing: 1) content, 2) organization, 3) grammar and style and 4) formatting. Use the attached form. QUESTIONS YOU MAY WANT TO ASK AS YOU REVIEW THE PAPER • • • • • • • What is the main point of the paper? What is the biggest problem? What is the biggest strength? What content does not fit the main point/and or audience? Where should more details/examples be added? Why? Is the organization confusing? Is the writing unclear or vague? �TERM PAPER PEER REVIEW FORM (Submit this copy to the paper authors) Environmental Issues: _________________________________________________________ PEER REVIEW (Use back of sheet if necessary.): 1. THESIS (CONTROLLING IDEA) 2. ORGANIZATION 3. CONTENT 4. WHAT I LIKED BEST AND WHAT I LIKED LEAST �TERM PAPER PEER REVIEW FORM (Submit this copy for 2 marks) Peer Reviewer’s Name: ___________________________________________________ Environmental Issue: _____________________________________________________ PEER REVIEW (Use back of sheet if necessary.): 1. THESIS (CONTROLLING IDEA) 2. ORGANIZATION 3. CONTENT 4. WHAT I LIKED BEST AND WHAT I LIKED LEAST � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assignments Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1InXsRVlV0dw5JwE6JsEMUGBvUM2KAZx1ARNapM1R7Ig/edit?usp=sharing" title="GEOG 1170/ ENST Instructions to Succeed in Writing on Research" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">GEOG 1170 Instructions to Succeed in Writing on Research</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GEOG/ENST 1170 Instructions to Succeed in Writing on Research Subject The topic of the resource GEOG/ENST 1170 https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/49f352a8912d07b034ae76dd3a0da386.pdf c69fb9f10432d5e768580b6314eb04ba PDF Text Text LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Annotated Bibliography Assignment PURPOSE The intention of this assignment is to provide you with an opportunity to begin finding scholarly sources for your term paper and to develop your summary and analytical skills. The assignment follows the citation formatting laid out in the Faculty Writing Manual and Style Guide, 12th edition (2014). For students in other faculties, an alternative style is acceptable, as long as the style is recognizable (e.g., Chicago, APA, MLA) and you are consistent in formatting. If you have not previously followed a style guide, pick one of the above or consult The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing (Dundurn Press). WHAT IS AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY? An annotated bibliography is a list of citations for books, articles, and documents accompanied by an annotation. The bibliography is introduced by providing a title and abstract of your term paper topic. Each citation is followed by a brief (usually about 150 words) descriptive and evaluative paragraph, the annotation. The purpose of the annotation is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited (Engle et al. 2005). Further, the annotation addresses how you intend to use the citation in your treatment of your term paper topic. An annotation is not a summary, but a critical description related to your topic. SUBMISSION DETAILS The assignment is to be single spaced with a cover page. Citations should not be numbered, but be listed alphabetically by author’s last name, followed by the annotation. Each citation should follow the previous one; there is no need for a separate page for each citation. The assignment title should read “Annotated Bibliography on _____” and then your term paper title. Pages should be numbered. NOT REQUIRED: table of contents. ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION 1. You will choose a topic for your term paper, with a proposed title and a one or two paragraph abstract. Put your topic and abstract at the beginning of the annotated bibliography. 2. Select at least 10 references, with at least five of them from peer-reviewed, academic journals or books (Rouch 2012) that are relevant to your chosen essay topic. Your sources can be print and/or online, but it is important that at least five sources are refereed. Academic journal articles are usually peer reviewed. The online “Get It” service at the LU Library, “will tell you via a green image beside the journal title if that journal is peerreviewed.” Some books will be peer reviewed and some not. The Library states that to determine if a book is peer reviewed, “look for books that include footnotes or bibliographies citing the sources for their information. Books without sources cited might be considered to be equivalent to general magazine articles.” Newspaper and massdistributed magazines, government documents, personal websites or weblogs are examples of non peer-reviewed sources. Your five non peer-reviewed sources may include such sources as the websites of government departments or interest groups. 3. After close reading, write annotations for each source (each annotation not to exceed a half-page, 2-3 paragraphs), summarizing and analyzing the source for relevance, accuracy and quality and focussing on why the source is valuable for informing your term Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith 7/6/17 �Annotated Bibliography Assignment 2 paper topic. There are many examples online about how to do an annotated bibliography. Engle et al. (2005) is one example. 4. Each entry in your annotated bibliography will include a full citation of each source with author, date, title and publication information (following the Literature Cited format from the Faculty Writing Manual or another accepted style manual), followed by the annotation. 5. Please post your assignment electronically in the Assignments folder on the D2L course website. Example of what to include in an annotated bibliography (do not italicize): Start with an abstract formatted according to the Faculty Writing Manual or style your discipline follows. See example on page 10 of Manual. This includes a citation for your paper, keywords and then an abstract, all single spaced. An example follows: Citation for your paper: Smith, P. 2015. The value of Social Impact Assessment in ensuring equity in environmental assessment for Indigenous peoples. Keywords: environmental assessment, equity, Indigenous peoples, social impacts YOUR TOPIC ABSTRACT (format according to Writing Manual, single spaced): This paper will explore whether Social Impact Assessment is an effective means of ensuring equity in environmental assessment for Indigenous peoples. Environmental assessment, if judged through the lens of sustainable development theory, should address social and economic issues, as well as environmental issues. However, in the past environmental assessment has been weak in addressing socio-economic impacts. EA has also tended to neglect the impacts of development on minorities. Social Impact Assessment is a tool to redress these omissions. Your paper citation, keywords and abstract will then be followed by your ten citations and annotations. Below is an example of a citation and annotation. Remember that at least five (5) of your citations should be from academic, peer-reviewed sources. George, C. 1999. Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19:175-200 (online). This article explores whether environmental assessment upholds the principles of sustainable development agreed to at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janiero in 1992. The author develops two main indicators for EA that he contends properly address the Rio principles: intergenerational and intragenerational equity. He further develops criteria expanding on these principles. One of them, under intragenerational equity, is “If Indigenous people or other minority groups are affected, have suitable provisions been made for their participation in project decisions?” The paper provides useful background for my exploration of social impact assessment as a tool to address the equity issues involved in assessing environmental impacts on Indigenous people. The concepts of intergenerational and intragenerational equity are often addressed by Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith 7/6/17 �Annotated Bibliography Assignment 3 Indigenous people through concerns about their youth, which is growing in population, and for the next generations, a concept captured in the phrase “for the next seven generations”. LITERATURE CITED Engle, M., A. Blumenthal and T. Cosgrave. 2005. How to prepare an annotated bibliography. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, NY. http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/skill28.htm. Dec. 17, 2015. Rouch, A. 2012. How do I know if a source is peer reviewed? The John Spellman Library @ Grays Harbor College. http://blogs.ghc.edu/library/?p=9. Dec. 17, 2015. Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith 7/6/17 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assignments Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oSi-luLZLywqjDhg49bScQch974HacGzCl5bwBOGkB8/edit?usp=sharing" title="NRMT Annotated Bibliography Assignment" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NRMT Annotated Bibliography Assignment </a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NRMT Annotated Bibliography Assignment Subject The topic of the resource NRMT Annotated Bibliography Assignment NRMT https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/f5f7fb78d0469833705b9c16ffcd56b2.pdf 41f721b9100d850507e77a0f7d499a26 PDF Text Text YOUR PLACE OUTD 1150 Term Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SIGNIFICANCE: This project invites you to find Your Place: a natural place on campus where you feel comfortable and engaged. Based on past student experiences, we know Your Place will become a powerful guide. Spending time here will sharpen your inborn abilities to tap into vast wisdoms held by wild communities of life. We need this vital knowledge to move forward in ecologically intelligent and compassionate ways. We need this wisdom to become fully human. Re-membering our way back into our wild families of life simply requires our respectful participation. The land community joyfully awaits our return. During each visit to Your Place, we encourage you to:  give your full attention during time spent with Your Place relations  make a personal commitment to regularly spend time with Your Place  allow new ways of sensory learning to deepen your sense of place  be curious; ask questions  seek diverse understandings to your questions and mindful ways of being  explore connections between self, community, and all your relations  record your discoveries, thoughts and feelings in a meaningful and creative way to help you re-member, reflect upon, and share your experiences with others. INTENTION: To gratefully acknowledge the ecological, spiritual, intellectual and emotional importance of wildlife communities here at Lakehead University and the larger bioregion. To give back to these generous life-sustaining communities by developing respectful mindfulness, by increasing our capacity to learn directly from the land via practicing core routines, and by honing our reflective thinking and writing skills as a way of sharing experiences and boldly speaking our truths as full members of the land community. There is a way that nature speaks, that land speaks. Most of the time we are simply not patient enough, quiet enough, to pay attention to the story Linda Hog, Chickasaw academic & author 1 �YOUR PLACE TERM PROJECT OVERVIEW: Assignment #1 Your Place Map & Reflection Due. Sept. 26 20% Assignment #2 Your Choice Core Routine & Reflection 20% Choose ONE of the following options: Option A. Expanding Senses with Our Plant Relations. Due Oct. 17 Option B. Bird Relations & Listening for Bird Language. Due Oct. 24 Option C. Questioning & Tracking. Due Oct. 31 Assignment #3 Story of the Day & Reflection To be scheduled Nov. 21 or 28 20% Please see the following pages for assignment details. What questions do you have? Please ask! Project Reflections from Former Students The sacred question is a gift that all of us posses yet hardly ever use. It is the ability to look at something and go through a process of questioning which will allow you to understand and connect with nature. It is about looking deeper into why things are they way they are. It is a quest for continual knowledge and understanding of life and all that’s in it. E. P. & R.H. While in our place we are overcome with the feeling of peace. The sense of peace became a strong connection with both of us and when we visited our place all we could do was listen to the water and wind and just connect more with ourselves and be who we are . . . Having a place such as this is a great getaway from the everyday stresses in life and people should become more aware of the emotional and personal connections they can make with nature. M.G & C. A. 2 �Term Project Assignment #1 YOUR PLACE MAP & REFLECTION Due: Week 3, Monday, September 26th, 2016. Worth: 20% of final grade. Required Readings: See readings listed in course schedule for Sept. 19th. Each group (ideally 2 people) will select a specific natural location on campus. Your Place will be the basis for all 3 term project assignments. Assignment #1 PART I: Explore and Map Your Place /25 marks Before next class (September 19), find Your Place and spend time exploring. Where do you feel most comfortable? Be curious! Be observant! Notice both general landscape patterns and finer details. Record as many individual notes and sketches from your first and return visits in your journal/notebook. Use your notes to help create your map. The map should provide evidence of your exploration and keen observation skills. Based on your shared observations, co-create a map of Your Place and answer together the following five questions: 1. What feature marks the centre of your circle? (Coyote’s Guide refers to this place as a “sit spot.”). (Draw and label the sit spot feature on your map). /1 2. What features will help you remember the four directions? (Draw each feature on your map that marks N, S, E & W. Be sure to label each direction). /4 3. What are the prominent landscape patterns (e.g. habitats, water bodies, elevation, etc.) of Your Place? Draw and clearly label at least 5 features and/or symbols on your map. /5 4. What discoveries did you make? For example, you may notice a particular plant, track, animal, fungus, rock outcrop, sound, smells, etc. Your map should include at least 10 discoveries. /10 5. Overall map evaluation. Creativity & effort put into the map’s visual presentation including layout, level of detail, creative use of colour, clear images and symbols, neatness, etc. /5 Community Mapping—a powerful way to stand up for places we love. 3 �Assignment #1 PART II: Mindfulness Through Reflective Writing /100 marks Each member of your group will submit an individual typewritten reflection by addressing the following questions. Please clearly number each question. Use the DASE Reflective Writing Tool and term project rubric to guide you. 1. Describe Your Place. 2. Define the concept “core routine.” What specific core routines, skills, and knowledge do you hope to develop by spending time in Your Place? Why? 3. What values have emerged through mapping Your Place? 4. Drawing upon Maeve Lydon’s article, Community Mapping: The Recovery (And Discovery) of Our Common Ground, describe the general benefits of community mapping. Did you experience any of these benefits while mapping Your Place with your partner? ASSIGNMENT #1 TOTAL /125 marks COMMUNITY CIRCLE Takes place Sept. 19th and contributes towards your course participation mark. We shall gather together as a community to share each group’s land connections and experiences. Please come prepared to mark the location of Your Place on the OUTD 1150 Community Map (provided by instructors). Each group will have an opportunity to share a creative place name that captures the essence of Your Place. Additionally, we will discuss Maeve Lydon’s article and share our personal insights. Please read the article with the aim of tuning into specific ideas that resonate with you, as well as ideas that challenge or disturb your current values and knowledge. Be prepared to share a sentence or paragraph you would like to comment on. 4 �Term Project Assignment #2 YOUR CHOICE CORE ROUTINE & REFLECTION Now that you have found YOUR PLACE, it’s time get to know this land community in a deeper way. We enter into meaningful land relationships through positive intent, awareness and direct participation: attributes nurtured by the core routines. Core routines are simply habits/ways of being that maximize our innate capacity to connect and learn with the land. In this assignment you have the opportunity to choose one of three core routines: expanding our senses; listening for bird language; or questioning and tracking. Intention: A playful opportunity for you to develop a core routine and share how practicing this new routine influenced your relationship with a land community (Your Place, your backyard, the bioregion and/or your home region). Choose ONE of the following options and complete Part I & II (see below). Note: the assignment is due two weeks after the related in-class discussions and field trip. Option A. Expanding Senses with Our Plant Relations Due Oct. 17 20% Required Readings: See readings listed in course schedule for Sept. 26th. Option B. Bird Relations & Listening for Bird Language Due Oct. 24 20% Required Readings: See readings listed in course schedule for Oct 3rd. Option C. Questioning & Tracking Due Oct. 31 20% Required Readings: See readings listed in course schedule for Oct 17th. Assignment #2 PART I: Creative Expression of Your Core Routine Experience /25 marks Practice the core routine and demonstrate your experience via any creative expression of your choice. Assignment #2 PART II: Reflection on Significance to Developing Land Relations /100 marks Yeah! Part II gives you another opportunity to master your reflective writing!! Each member of your group will submit an individual typewritten reflection by addressing the following questions. Please clearly number each question. Use the DASE Reflective Writing Tool and term project rubric to guide you. Please note that marks are given for improvement so be sure to review our suggestions from Assignment #1. 1. In your own words, describe your chosen core routine. Why did this option appeal to you? 2. Share your experiences applying this core routine. 3. What did you discover regarding your relationship with a specific land community (Your Place, your backyard, the bioregion and/or your home region)? How does your experience compare with concepts discussed in the required readings? ASSIGNMENT #2 TOTAL / 125 marks 5 �Term Project Assignment #3 STORY OF THE DAY & REFLECTION To be scheduled on Monday November 21st or November 28th. Please dress appropriately for your warmth and comfort, as we will be outside for the entire class time. Bringing a warm drink or other energy source is recommended. Worth: 20% of final grade. Required Readings: Coyote’s Guide p. 41-44, 113-116, 296-299. Learning from the Land by Brian “Fox” Ellis. Winter is a time for slowing down, reflection and sharing stories. As the Land Relations course moves towards closure, we will celebrate our collective land connections by sharing stories that emerged from Your Place experiences. The story sharing will happen at Your Place. You are welcome to bring along your journal/notebook, map and any other items that may aid your story sharing. Assignment #3 PART 1 CELEBRATION of YOUR PLACE /25 marks This assignment offers an opportunity for your group to share your special place and the teachings from the land. Your group’s presentation should be approximately 15 minutes in duration. Please ensure each person contributes equally to the presentation. Your group’s presentation should include:  An informal tour of Your Place. Help us connect by indicating the general boundaries, your sit spots, the four directions, and key features of the land community.  A Story of the Day from each group member. Presentation Evaluation Criteria: • • • • • 6 Evidence of familiarity with Your Place /5 Engaging place-based stories /5 Accurate information shared /5 Well organized. Presentation kept to time limit. /5 Respect shown for land and our learning community /5 �Assignment #3 PART II: Reflection on Storied Places & Evolving Land Relations /100 marks Each member of your group will submit an individual typewritten reflection by addressing the following questions. Please clearly number each question. Use the DASE Reflective Writing Tool and term project rubric to guide you. Please note that marks are given for improvement so be sure to review our suggestions from Assignments #1 & #2. 1. In what ways did hearing stories about other students’ places impact you? Why? 2. How did your relationship with this land community change over the past 10 weeks? 3. What did you learn about yourself, this bioregion, and/or your home-bioregion from your personal experiences in Your Place? 4. Reflecting on the overall significance and intention of the term project (see page 1), which aspects of this project will most benefit your ongoing land relations journey? Why? ASSIGNMENT #3 TOTAL /125 marks 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assignments Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Ra5Tl3Z45gRRqAbMfCM88COUWXTXJWO7U5M8RzEL_4/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 1150 Land Relations Term Project">OUTD 1150 Land Relations Term Project</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 1150 Term Project Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 1150 Assignment OUTD 1150 Term Project https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/9e96c3ab8dbfcfb7553ae8027962abfb.pdf f04ec891f764caec5c54acc33bd00d9a PDF Text Text 1070 WA&WB 2010 1 Lakehead University, School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism OUTD 1070 WA/WB Outdoor Recreation and Society Instructor: Dr. Rhonda Koster Office: SN2005D Tel: 343-8554 Email: rhonda.koster@lakeheadu.ca Class: WA M&W 1:00 to 2:30 AT 2015 WB W&F 8:30 to 10:00 AT 2015 Office Hours: TBA or by appointment Course Description: An examination of the principles, concepts and theories governing people's recreational use of natural settings; the environmental issues in outdoor recreation related to leadership, protected areas, and tourism; and, the approaches used to manage outdoor recreation in Canada Required Text: Plummer, R. (2009). Outdoor Recreation: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Course Evaluation & Assignments: Description Due Date Value Term Paper January 29th 25% Mid Term Test Feb 10 (WA) & 12 (WB) 25% Group Project March 29th 25% Final Exam TBA 25% IMPORTANT NOTICES: #1. Term Paper must be Peer Reviewed • Your paper must be peer reviewed (proof read) by someone and you must make changes to your paper before you hand it in. • The paper that is reviewed must be signed and handed in with your final copy IN ORDER FOR YOUR PAPER TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE. NON-PROOF READ PAPERS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. #2. Web Sources are not acceptable • You can use journal articles (electronic acceptable), government documents or websites, or books, but no web sources. �1070 WA&WB 2010 2 * DUE DATE POLICY * Assignments (term paper & group) are due on the date stated within the syllabus, stamped by the security office, AT 4:30PM IN MY MAILBOX IN THE REC HALL. ANY ASSIGNMENTS ARRIVING AFTER 4:30PM OR NOT STAMPED WILL BE CONSIDERED LATE AND WILL RECEIVE A 10% MARK REDUCTION. A late assignment will be deducted 10% per day there after. Students may contact the professor ONE WEEK prior to the due date (or earlier) if there appears to be difficulties in meeting the deadlines as posted, and consideration MAY be given. If there are serious medical or emergency circumstances that arise, you must provide appropriate documentation. Students are expected to write all exams on the date indicated, during your scheduled class time. There are NO EXCEPTIONS. * ACADEMIC DISHONESTY, PLAGIARISM AND CHEATING * All assignments (except where noted) and exams must be completed independently. Please review the university policy on plagiarism and academic dishonesty. Students are encouraged to speak to the instructor if you are unsure as to what these regulations mean. Please be aware that the minimum penalty for a student guilty of plagiarism and/or cheating is a mark of zero for the work concerned. Tentative Schedule: Date Jan 4-8 Jan 11-22 Jan 25-Feb 8 Feb 10 & 12 February 15-19 Feb 22 – Mar 5 Mar 8-19 Mar 22 – Apr 1 Tentative Topic Introduction, Course Outline, Objectives Assignments Leisure, Recreation and Tourism History and Evolution of Outdoor Recreation Philosophies of Environmental Thought Mid Term Exam Study Week Social Psychological Dimensions of Outdoor Recreation Social and Environmental Impacts of Tourism and Recreation Planning, Managing and Monitoring the Social and Environmental Impacts of Recreation Text Readings CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4 CH5 (pg.153-8) CH6 CH6 Tests & Exams The Mid Term test is on February 10 (WA) and 12 (WB) and will cover course lectures and readings up to that date. • Mid Term exams are generally made up of a variety of short answer, definition, & multiple choice questions. • You will be given a choice of questions to answer. The Final Exam, date determined by the Registrar, will cover all course lectures and readings taken after the Mid term until the last class. • The Final Exam will be structured in a similar fashion to the mid term, but will also include an essay question that will be comprehensive in nature. • As with the mid term, there will be a choice of questions to answer. �1070 WA&WB 2010 3 ASSIGNMENTS Term Paper Due Date: January 29th, 2010 The purpose of this assignment is to complete a social sciences research paper, where the student chooses a preferred recreation/tourism activity and undertakes the following analyses: 1. An examination of the historical evolution of the chosen activity 2. An examination of the social-psychological dimensions (why people participate) of the chosen activity; AND 3. An examination of the social and environmental impacts of the chosen activity Assignment Description: - Students are required to write a 8-10 page paper that includes the following social science conventions for research papers: o Introduction  General Statements regarding topic area  Purpose of the paper (“The purpose of this paper is…)  How the paper is organized (‘The paper begins by …) o Body  Headings for each major topic area (see 1 to 3 above) and use of subheadings if appropriate, to structure the body o Conclusion  Restate purpose  Summary statement from each section - You are required to use APA format in completing your assignment - A MINIMUM of 6 refereed (journal articles, books, government publications) publications are required (no random websites will be accepted). Evaluation: The following rubric indicates how the assignment will be evaluated Element Writing Mechanics ( /20) Research/ Referencing ( /20) Content ( /40) 85-100 75-84 - conforms to APA standards - conforms to APA standards (headings, manuscript (headings, manuscript header, margins, page header, margins, page numbers, referencing style) numbers) - good spelling and grammar - limited spelling or - very good sentence grammatical errors structure - good sentence structure - paragraphs are well planned and paragraph flow and have excellent flow - excellent referencing within - good referencing within the the text text - large number of journal - more than 5 journal articles articles - variety of sources (different journals) - wide variety of sources (different journals, books and other information sources) - all aspects of the - all aspects of the assignment are completed assignment are completed - information is accurate, up - information is accurate and 60-74 - some mistakes in APA format - some spelling and grammatical mistakes - sentences are somewhat difficult to understand - paragraphs have too many ideas < 60 - mistakes in APA format - mistakes in spelling and grammar take away from understanding - sentences are poorly structured - paragraphs are confusing - missing some referencing in the text - only 5 journal articles - limited variety of sources (multiple use of same journal or edited volume) - very limited referencing within the text - less than 5 journal sources (or includes web sources) - no variety of sources - missing some required elements of the assignment - some information is - several missing elements - information is often inaccurate �1070 WA&WB 2010 4 to date and goes beyond what is required - information is synthesized and connected to course material, as well as connections being made between literature sources - argument is well constructed and connects strongly to conclusion Group Project up to date - good synthesis of information and connection between literature sources - well constructed argument and connects to conclusion inaccurate or out of date - the information is summarized but not well connected to literature - argument is difficult to follow to the conclusion - there is limited connection between literature or purpose of paper - limited development of argument; no real conclusions Due Date: March 29th, 2010 As the course description illustrates, management, its implications and applications within an outdoor recreation context, is a core element of OUTD 1070. Although management will form part of the lectures, the main focus of your weekly seminars will be on this topic. • Over the course of the semester, during your scheduled seminar times, you will be required to complete a variety of assignments that will relate to your final group project. • During your first seminar (beginning January 11-15) you will be asked to form groups of 3 to 4 people that will be a partnership for the remainder of the semester (please choose your group wisely). • Each group will create a fictitious organization that relates to one of outdoor recreation, parks or tourism during this first seminar. • All remaining seminars will provide you with detailed descriptions of what is required for your final project. • At the end of the semester, each group will be required to submit a final report about their organization. • Although each report will be unique, it must contain the following elements (using an APA format where noted): o Title page (not APA) o Table of Contents o Introduction o Body (contents of which will be explained in the seminar) o Discussion o Conclusion o References (APA) o Appendices (if appropriate) o The use of tables, figures and graphics is strongly encouraged • Although you will be given some seminar time to work on your project, students are advised to work outside of class time to complete the project. • The course syllabus you receive for 1930 will provide more detailed information on this assignment. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assignments Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MyTKhTT38rTPaonNh_rUp2_nunLEvVqWAh7iOQSEtq4/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 1070 Syllabus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 1070 Syllabus</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 1070 Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 1070 Assignment Group Project OUTD 1070 Syllabus Term Paper https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/f69f2146e3981add037498f3866b9e95.pdf d4df0974c11dc0d839e2b0356797c814 PDF Text Text Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Jordana Garbati, Kelly McDonald, Lindsay Meaning, Boba Samuels, Cory Scurr Wilfrid Laurier University �Published by The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 1 Yonge Street, Suite 2402 Toronto, ON Canada, M5E 1E5 Phone: Fax: Web: E-mail: (416) 212-3893 (416) 212-3899 www.heqco.ca info@heqco.ca Cite this publication in the following format: Garbati, J., McDonald, K., Meaning, L., Samuels, B., & Scurr, C.* (2015). Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. *Authors listed in alphabetic order * The opinions expressed in this research document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or official policies of the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario or other agencies or organizations that may have provided support, financial or otherwise, for this project. © Queens Printer for Ontario, 2015 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Acknowledgements The authors extend appreciation and thanks to the faculty and staff at Ontario universities who generously engaged in this research project. We also thank HEQCO for its support and the funding that enabled us to carry out this research. We are grateful as well to the reviewers of this manuscript who helped us clarify and adapt this work for publication. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 2 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Executive Summary The ability of postsecondary students to write and communicate proficiently is an expectation identified by many, including not only organizations such as the OECD but also other public and employer groups. There is concern, however, that students and thus employees often fail to meet expectations in these areas. To address this concern, it is necessary to understand more about the writing skills that students learn during their postsecondary education. This research project was designed to examine whether and how students are taught to write at university. This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the writing opportunities afforded to students at five Ontario universities in their first and second years. We analyzed course syllabi (n=215), distributed online surveys to university instructors (n=31), and held focus groups (n=3) of faculty (n=8) to identify the assignments and instruction that students received. We chose one representative department within each of three disciplines (arts/humanities, sciences and applied fields) to study: history, kinesiology and business. The research questions that guided this research were:  What types of writing assignments do students receive in first- and second-year courses in the humanities, sciences and applied fields (e.g., history, kinesiology and business)?  What are instructors’ perceptions about the in-class writing instruction they provide to address these assignments? Our findings indicate that university students write an average of 2.5 assignments per course. This finding is consistent with the results of other research in Canadian and US universities. Based on these values and assuming a course load of 5, students would write an average of about 12 assignments over the course of a year, suggesting that university students do, in fact, have opportunities to learn advanced academic writing in their courses. We also found, however, that there were significant differences between the number of assignments expected across disciplines, with students in history writing almost twice as many assignments as those in kinesiology or business. So while many students are receiving opportunities to learn and practice writing in their first- and second-year courses, many others are doing little or no writing. One instructional strategy that has been suggested to promote writing skill development is to use low-stakes writing assignments. These can be incorporated into courses as nested assignments so students have an opportunity to submit component parts of an assignment and receive feedback about their writing as they work toward a final product. Our syllabi analysis shows that almost one-quarter of assignments were categorized as nested assignments. There is therefore an opportunity for professors to increase the use of the nested assignment model and to incorporate more low-stakes writing opportunities in first- and secondyear courses. We found that only about 5% of syllabi indicated an opportunity for students to receive any form of in-process feedback on their writing assignments. Using a nested assignment approach increases the amount of feedback that students receive from professors. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 3 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Our faculty survey and focus group interviews elaborated on the syllabi data. Findings from these additional data sources indicated that professors in all three departments at one institution relied on their own undergraduate and graduate writing experiences to inform their current writing instruction. Kinesiology professors appeared to feel the most competent to provide writing instruction to their first- and secondyear students. Professors did not indicate that they received any ongoing professional development opportunities on writing instruction, so this might be worth considering when planning for departmental development. There were several differences between departments and among individual professors’ perceptions and approaches to writing instruction. Unlike history and kinesiology professors, for example, business faculty did not include a lot of writing instruction or assignments in their first- and second-year courses. History and kinesiology professors indicated that they considered disciplinary goals when they planned writing instruction and assignments, but business professors did not. Professors in the three departments reported using both in-class and online instructional strategies but emphasized different topics in their classes (e.g., grammar in history, APA style in kinesiology). Finally, professors in all departments perceived students as lacking in writing ability or engagement, and while they recognized the writing centre as a reliable resource for students, they often spoke of it with a remedial purpose in mind. In conclusion, this study shows that student writing at university is poorly addressed in any systematic, coherent way. Further, writing across the disciplines includes diverse experiences and instructional approaches. Professors in some disciplines may be more focused on sharing subject content than providing writing instruction. The barriers to university writing instruction identified in this study (i.e., lack of institutional resources, low level of student abilities and engagement, inconsistent departmental support), need to be addressed so that professors and institutions in general will be in a better position to support writing development in the early years of undergraduate education. Future study should extend this research to include examination of writing assignments and instruction in other disciplines and with other student groups such as graduate students or international students. Also suggested are studies that include larger numbers of instructors in the focus groups so that a more comprehensive view of the departments from multiple perspectives is available. Finally, inclusion of students in a similar study would be of value so that their perceptions of the instruction and assignments they receive are considered. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 4 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Findings .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Quantitative Results: Syllabi Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12 Quantitative Results: Faculty Survey ......................................................................................................... 16 Qualitative Analysis: Faculty Surveys and Focus Group Interviews .......................................................... 18 Theme 1: Faculty Writing Qualifications .............................................................................................. 18 Theme 2: Writing Assignment Variety ................................................................................................. 20 Theme 3: Teaching Strategies and Types of Writing Instruction ......................................................... 22 Theme 4: Assessment, Feedback and Goals ........................................................................................ 23 Theme 5: Department-wide Goals and Guidelines .............................................................................. 24 Theme 6: Expectations and View of Student Abilities/Engagement ................................................... 25 Theme 7: Challenges: Class Size, Lack of Time, TAs and Resources..................................................... 26 Theme 8: Institutional Resources Available ......................................................................................... 28 Summary of Qualitative Findings ......................................................................................................... 28 Discussion........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Assignment and Instruction Descriptions .................................................................................................. 30 Three Barriers to Improving Student Writing ............................................................................................ 31 (1) Lack of Resources............................................................................................................................ 31 (2) Low Level of Student Abilities and Engagement............................................................................. 31 (3) Lack of Departmental Support........................................................................................................ 32 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion and Avenues for Further Investigation............................................................................................ 33 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 5 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines List of Tables Table 1: Number of Course Syllabi and Writing Assignments Coded for each Department ............................ 12 at each University Table 2: Summary of Key Findings from the Syllabi Analysis ............................................................................ 13 Table 3: Record of Survey and Focus Group Interview Participants................................................................. 18 Table 4: Summary of Key Findings from the Interview and Survey Data Analysis ........................................... 28 List of Figures Figure 1: Graph Depicting the Average Number of Assignments Given to Students in Each Discipline .......... 14 Across Institutions Figure 2: Types and Frequency of Supplemental Materials Faculty Members Give to Students ..................... 16 Figure 3: Types and Frequency of Feedback Provided to Students by Professors ........................................... 17 Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 6 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Introduction The writing ability of university students receives considerable attention and is often criticized, not only in the media (see Holland, 2013; MacQueen, 2013) but also from within the academy (see Goldberger, 2014; Graves, 2013, 2014). Major reports on educational attainment, such as the OECD’s Education at a Glance (2013), draw attention to the expectation that students at the postsecondary level be able to write well by the time they graduate. In articles about employability and the skills needed to succeed beyond university, communication skills factor highly in business fields and elsewhere (see Bloom & Kitagawa, 1999; Career Builder, 2015; The Conference Board of Canada, 2014). At the university level, in policy documents such as the 2007 Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents’ Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLEs), the ability of undergraduate students to communicate – orally and in writing – is prominently recognized as an important learning outcome. These UDLEs are reinforced in the similar but more recent policies for graduate students (see Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance, 2010). Given this attention to students’ communication and writing abilities, it is reasonable to ask what instruction students receive in university to develop their ability to write. This project provides an analysis of writing/communication instruction in first and second year at publicly funded universities in Ontario. We describe writing assignments given to students in three disciplines, explore professors’ expectations for student writing, and identify the kinds of curricular instruction available to first- and second-year undergraduate students. In the first phase, data were collected through syllabi analysis and an online survey of professors. In the second phase, we conducted focus group interviews with professors in three departments (business, history and kinesiology) at one institution. This project enables a discussion of how current university writing instruction aligns with expectations for student outcomes, public expectations about writing and best practices identified by writing researchers. Literature Review Identifying and describing the writing assignments that students are required to complete at university provides one approach to understanding how students learn to write. Course writing assignments may be designed to test students’ knowledge of content as well as to enable students to develop, refine and practice necessary writing skills and to receive assessment on how well they are demonstrating those skills. Under this view, it is assumed that students not only receive the assignment but also instruction on how to complete it, along with clear and constructive feedback to guide them. Students’ poor writing may thus reflect a variety of causes, including a paucity of writing instruction and feedback, in spite of the opportunity or requirement to write for class. While the omission of instruction is not likely to happen in specifically labeled “writing courses” with experienced writing instructors, it is possible in other courses, especially in large first-year classes in which course content may be emphasized at the expense of writing development. Despite its limitations, the identification and analysis of writing assignments given to university students is a reasonable starting point for an exploration and improved understanding of student writing development. One established method for identifying writing assignments is to analyze course syllabi. The benefits of conducting a syllabi analysis to determine the number and types of writing assignments in any given course Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 7 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines have been documented in the literature (Graves, Hyland & Samuels, 2010; Graves et al., 2014; Meltzer, 2003, 2009). Notably, course syllabi readily serve as a consistent component for examination across courses and institutions because they are required for all courses and are usually publicly available. Syllabi are understood to function as a contract between professor and student that outlines the expectations and structure of a course. As such, syllabi are likely to reasonably reflect the work that students are required to complete. Conducting a systematic analysis of course syllabi requires little reliance on professors or students to provide their recollections about assignments within a course, across a discipline, or across an institution. Stanny, Gonzales and McGowen (2014) summarize findings of four reviews of syllabi that occurred over a five-year period at the University of South Florida and suggest that this research approach can produce a rich data set that can address multiple focused questions about the nature of teaching and learning. Previous research using syllabi analysis at a Canadian university indicates that students write on average 2.5 assignments of about four pages each in most of their classes, though this varies by program and faculty (Graves, Hyland & Samuels, 2010). The types of assignments (e.g., essays and research reports) required in students’ degree programs suggest that professors design assignments to teach students how to meet traditional disciplinary and professional demands and expectations. Mathematics programs, for instance, may include no writing requirements (Graves et al., 2014). Research on writing tasks at the university level has often focused on science and engineering (for example, Braine, 1995; Graves, Parker & Marcynuk, 2013), and relatively little attention has been directed to fields such as business. In engineering, Graves, Parker and Marcynuk (2013) suggested that a lack of genre identification or a misidentification of the required genre is a contributing factor to poor student writing. In other words, it is not clear to students what it is that they need to write as an assignment. A variety of undergraduate and graduate levels of study have also been examined to a limited extent. Recently, Samuels and McDonald (2015) conducted a syllabi study in a faculty of science and observed an increase in the number of assignments in third- and fourth-year undergraduate courses compared to first- and second-year courses while the number of courses offered actually decreased. Their findings showed a significant difference in the number of assignments in first- and second-year versus third- and fourth-year courses. In the case of biology, for example, none of the first-year courses (n=2) required writing assignments and only 9% of the second-year courses (n=11) included such assignments. Together, these studies provide some indication of the writing instruction students in the sciences may receive. Although some recent research has focused on students’ development of communication skills in business, systematic analyses of the writing tasks required in business courses remain rare (Zhu, 2004). In one early study on business writing, Canesco and Byrd (1989) analyzed 55 graduate course syllabi and found a lack of clarity regarding writing assignments. For instance, it was unclear from the syllabi how a “project” differed from a “report.” Moreover, assignments often required teamwork and were controlled by the instructors. Bogert and Butt (1996) also completed a syllabi analysis to determine the types of writing assignments expected of students in MBA courses; the researchers found that MBA courses were designed to include both writing and oral skill development. Zhu’s (2004) analysis of 95 course syllabi and handouts on writing assignments in undergraduate and graduate business courses revealed that students were expected to take on two roles: (a) an institutional role (writer as learner) and (b) a professional role (writer as business Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 8 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines person). More recently, O’Day Nicolas and Annous (2013) conducted a syllabi analysis using the model proposed by Graves, Hyland and Samuels (2010) in a Lebanese faculty of business. The researchers found that 70% of syllabi in their data set made no reference to writing, and in the remaining 30% of syllabi that did include a writing component, the function of the writing component was not made explicit. As these studies indicate, a variety of conclusions can be drawn based on the type of data extracted from syllabi. Many studies, like Zhu’s (2004), relied upon analysis of assignments from only one institution. As a result, Zhu recommended that future research be conducted to analyze writing assignments from different types of institutions and business programs. The concern that writing assignments vary not only by course and program but also potentially by institution is not well studied, though some differences are established. Writing instruction in Canadian universities generally differs from that in the US, which has a strong history of first-year composition courses (ClaryLemon, 2009; Russell, 2002). Some Canadian universities do have introductory writing courses, writing courses in the disciplines, or even whole writing departments, but these are not universally present. Adding to the complexity, over the past few decades writing instruction in many school environments has adopted a writing-across-the-curriculum model (i.e., all teachers are writing teachers) and/or a writing-in-thedisciplines model (i.e., writing is best learned in disciplinary contexts), with much overlap between these and other approaches (Bazerman et al., 2005). As a result, writing instruction for university students is currently addressed in a variety of ways and locations. Little is known about how structured or comprehensive such writing instruction is in universities across Canada and what role assignments play in this instruction. Research Questions In this study, we sought to describe university writing assignments and instruction for students in the early years of their undergraduate programs at Ontario’s publicly funded universities. The goal of the project was to create a case study of three disciplines, focusing on their provision of writing instruction and writing assignment design in first- and second-year courses. This study enables us to consider whether students are being given sufficient opportunities to develop their abilities to write/communicate at advanced levels and how this development is being addressed across the three fields of study. Two research questions guided this project:   What types of assignments do students receive in first- and second-year courses in the humanities, sciences and applied fields (e.g., history, kinesiology and business)? What are instructors’ perceptions about the in-class writing instruction they provide to address these assignments? Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 9 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Methods Our mixed-methods investigation used document analysis and case study methods to explore the current state of writing at Ontario universities. We analyzed course syllabi, distributed online faculty surveys and conducted faculty focus group interviews to create a description of writing instruction across three disciplines. Although our initial goal was to have three universities serve as institutional “cases” for this project, difficulties in acquiring sufficient numbers of participants from each university and in data collection within the appropriate time span resulted in a revised approach. To capture potential differences between fields, we chose one department to represent each of the humanities, sciences and applied fields at any participating institutions. The departmental “cases” chosen to represent disciplinary differences were history, kinesiology and business. We also chose to focus on first- and second-year courses to limit the amount of data and analysis to a reasonable level given the constraints of this project. This focus enables us to separate the writing experiences of students in their early years of university study from those of upperyear students. Procedure Approval from the research ethics board was received to approach Ontario universities to recruit participants for this study. We sent a recruitment letter (see Appendix A) inviting each of the three departments at eight universities to participate by sharing the syllabi for their first- and second-year courses with us. These eight universities were identified because each of them had the targeted disciplines and departments. The departments were chosen primarily because of their popularity with students and the lack of existing research about writing within these disciplines. Following approval of each department, all professors (part-time and full-time) within the department were emailed an invitation to participate in an online survey about student writing and writing instruction and, if they wished, to participate in a focus group to discuss writing. We later emailed respondents interested in the focus groups to coordinate a meeting time. Two members of the research team conducted each focus group interview (n=3). The focus groups followed a semi-structured format; each focus group was about one hour in length. Each group’s discussion was audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. Participants Five Ontario universities that offered programs in the targeted departments or disciplines participated in the first phase of this project, the syllabi analysis. They ranged in size from medium (17,000 students) to large (30,000 students). A total of 31 instructors at five universities participated in the online survey, which was distributed to all full and part-time faculty in the targeted departments. Faculty focus group interviews were carried out at one institution and each group included faculty from one of the three departments: business and economics (n=4), history (n=1) and kinesiology (n=3). By conducting departmental focus groups, faculty members had an opportunity to respond to and comment on their colleagues’ responses. In addition, it was ideal to conduct focus groups rather than individual interviews because of the time limitation of this project. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 10 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Insufficient numbers of volunteers from other institutions made conducting focus groups at these institutions not feasible in the timespan of the study. Data Collection and Analysis We collected syllabi from all first- and second-year courses offered in the Winter 2014 and Fall 2014 terms in the selected departments at the participating universities. The appropriate program assistant provided us with electronic copies of all syllabi. We coded and analyzed syllabi for characteristics of the writing assignments given to students (e.g., number of assignments, length of assignments, marks allocated, type of assignments, etc.), following the model used by Graves, Hyland and Samuels (2010). Appendix B provides an explanation of the coding categories. We organized the data into a shared Excel spreadsheet. Frequent team meetings were held in order to discuss the coding process and ensure that each researcher was interpreting syllabi and coding in a manner consistent with the others; differences in interpretation were resolved through group consensus. We then analyzed these data using SPSS software to determine frequencies and significant differences between departments. Next, we distributed an online survey to professors to collect data on their perceptions of student writing and writing instruction. The purpose of this survey was to augment information collected from the syllabi with comments and elaboration from professors about their approaches to writing instruction in their discipline. The survey contained a mix of open-ended and Likert scale questions (see Appendix C). Finally, we conducted three semi-structured focus group interviews with a total of eight professors to explore their perceptions concerning: (a) the volume of student writing required, (b) the barriers faculty face when assigning writing, (c) the quality of student writing submitted, and (d) faculty awareness and use of instructional resources such as the writing centre and library. See Appendix D for the questions asked in these focus groups. While ideally qualitative analysis would be conducted through lengthy immersion in the field and interaction with the data, the timeline of this project necessitated the adoption of a more efficient method. As a result, we interviewed each professor only one time and we limited our recruitment methods to what was manageable in the time frame. We used the coding program QDA Miner Lite (2015) as our tool to facilitate analysis of the survey’s open-ended responses and focus group transcriptions. We created a series of codes that represented a range of possible topics concerning writing instruction; codes were added as new topics emerged out of the data. Each mention of these topics in the transcripts was flagged with the relevant code, and the program allowed us to evaluate and compare the coded instances in detail. The analysis of the coded transcripts allowed us to consider faculty comments on identified topics and their perceived importance. The survey and focus group analyses complement the syllabi analysis and allow us to comment on faculty members’ current pedagogical approaches towards writing. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 11 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Findings Quantitative Results: Syllabi Analysis We collected a total of 215 first- and second-year course syllabi from the targeted three disciplines. These syllabi yielded 544 separate records of writing assignments. Table 1 summarizes the number of course syllabi and writing assignments for each department at each university. To answer our first research question about the types of assignments given, we analyzed characteristics of writing assignments given to students across the three disciplines of interest. An overview of the key findings is listed in Table 2. Table 1: Number of Course Syllabi and Writing Assignments Coded for each Department at each University Discipline Department Institution A Applied Business 13 25 Humanities History 15 27 Science Kinesiology 30 67 Applied Business 9 15 Humanities History 23 77 Science Kinesiology 11 6 Humanities History 49 219 Science Kinesiology 12 21 Institution D Applied Business 44 77 Institution E Science Biology* 9 10 215 544 Institution B Institution C Total No. of Syllabi No. of Assignment Records Institution * This institution did not provide kinesiology department syllabi but did volunteer to contribute their syllabi from a related science department to our research project. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 12 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Table 2: Summary of Key Findings from the Syllabi Analysis Characteristic of Assignment Key Finding Frequency of Assignments  The average number of assignments given to students per course was 2.5. Types of Assignments  The most common genre of writing assigned to students was labelled an “assignment” (e.g., tutorial assignment, written assignment, personal assignment, etc.) Length of Assignments  On average, writing assignments were 5 pages in length. Value of Assignments  The average assignment accounted for 12% of a student’s final grade. Nested Assignments  21% of the assignments coded were nested assignments (i.e., broken down into separate components). Learning Goals  Learning goals (i.e., explicit statements of the objective of an assignment) were specified in 56.4% of assignments. Rubric  Only 7.4% of assignment records contained rubrics. Feedback  Only 4.8% of assignment records provided the opportunity for students to receive feedback (e.g., peer review, comments on an unmarked first draft). Audience Specified  Very few assignments (1.8%) specified an audience for student writing other than the TA or the professor Frequency of Assignments. Across all of the disciplines and institutions, the average number of assignments given to students per course was 2.52 (SD = 3.04). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if the average number of assignments per course differed by discipline. Results revealed a significant difference between disciplines, F(2, 212) = 12.25, p < .001. More specifically, students in humanities courses (M = 3.71, SD = 3.80) were asked to write significantly more than students in science (M = 1.68, SD = 1.78) and applied courses (M = 1.77, SD = 2.28). This finding is represented in Figure 1. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 13 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Figure 1: Graph Depicting the Average Number of Assignments Given to Students in Each Discipline Across Institutions Average Number of Assignments Given to Students 5 4.5 3.71 4 3.5 3 2.5 1.68 1.77 Science Applied 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Humanities Discipline Types of Assignments. Of the 544 assignment records, 20% were identified by the professor as “assignments.” Included in this category was a wide variety of instructor-labeled terms such as “tutorial assignment,” “website assignment,” “written assignment” and “personal assignment.” The second most common category (encompassing about 11% of all records) was “essay” and the third most common category (accounting for 9% of all records) was “paper.” The remainder of the records identified a wide range of assignments, ranging from lab reports to online discussions. Exploration of the distribution of types of assignments across the different disciplines did not reveal any meaningful differences between disciplines. Overall, the labels given by professors to the most common assignments were general and provided little information about the specific elements or genre characteristics required in these assignments (e.g., essay). Length and Value of Assignments. Instructors specified the assignment length in only 39% of assignment records (n=212). Of these, 20.3% were short assignments of one page or less. Assignments of two to four pages comprised 34.6% of all assignment records. Together, assignments of four pages or less made up 55% of assignments for which length was specified. Moderate length assignments (between five and 10 pages) comprised 36.7% of assignment records, while long assignments (greater than 10 pages) made up 8.4%. The average number of words per assignment was 1,307 words (approximately five pages), with a median of 1,000 words. Not surprisingly, the length of assignment significantly correlated with the value of the assignment towards the students’ final grade, r(206) = .56, p < .001. Therefore, assignments that were longer in length were also worth more towards students’ final grades. Correspondingly, individual shorter assignments had less impact on students’ final grades. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 14 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Nested Assignments. We also examined the extent to which assignments were “nested” within each other. A nested assignment is one that can be broken down into separate components and handed in separately over the course of a term (e.g., an annotated bibliography, proposal, first draft and final report). Students are thought to benefit from these sequential assignments as they introduce different genres of writing using a scaffold strategy. Overall, we found that nested assignments were not common. More specifically, 21% (n=115) of the assignments coded were nested. The number of nested assignments did not differ significantly across disciplines; however, there was a slightly higher percentage of nested assignments found in the applied courses (24%) than in the science (21%) or humanities (18%) courses. This suggests that applied courses may provide more structure for students as they learn the genres of the discipline. Learning Goals. A learning goal is defined as an explicit statement of the learning objective(s) targeted by the assignment. In our data, learning goals were fairly common and were specified in 56.4% of assignments. The greatest proportion of assignments with learning goals was found in applied courses, with 87% of all assignments in this discipline identifying a learning goal. Approximately 51% of assignments coded from humanities courses contained a learning goal, and 40% of assignments coded from science courses contained a learning goal. Rubric. We examined how many course syllabi contained a grading rubric for writing assignments. An assignment was coded as containing a rubric if it had a description of what the instructor would look for when grading the assignment. This information could be presented in tabular form, lists, or as a written comment, with or without numerical grades included. Our data indicated that rubrics were relatively rare, only occurring in 7.4% (n=40) of assignment records. Of the assignments that did contain rubrics, the majority of them (n=35) were in the format of written statements, with an average of four evaluation criteria per rubric. Approximately half of the rubrics (48%; n=19) were found in assignments from the applied courses, 33% (n=13) were found in assignments from humanities courses and 20% (n=8) were found in assignments from science courses. Feedback. We coded how many writing assignments gave students an opportunity to receive feedback before the assignment was handed in for grading. Some examples of possible feedback include written comments by a faculty member or TA on a draft, peer review in or out of class, or scheduled office hours with a professor or TA. We found that only 4.8% (n=26) of assignment records indicated that students were provided with an opportunity to receive feedback. Almost all (96%) of the assignments that did offer feedback were found in the humanities. Audience Specified. An audience for an assignment (other than a professor or TA) may be specified by the professor and may be hypothetical or authentic. Our data showed that the audience was specified in less than 2% of assignment records (n=10). Therefore, students almost always wrote assignments with the professor or TA as the sole reader in mind. Examples of other audiences that were specified included a potential investor, the History Channel, a high school class and camp counselors. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 15 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Quantitative Results: Faculty Survey To answer our second research question regarding faculty members’ perceptions of student writing and writing instruction, we analyzed responses to our faculty survey. A total of 31 professors across five institutions completed the online survey. The majority of survey respondents identified themselves as being from an applied discipline (68.8%) and having tenured status at their institutions (80%). The distribution of survey respondents is outlined in Table 3. Writing Instruction. Almost all faculty members who completed the survey (97%; n=30) indicated that they required students to write in their classes. They were also asked to identify the types of writing that they assigned to students in their classes, and the most common types were “analyses,” “assignment” and “paper.” Of the faculty members who required students to write in their classes, 80% (n=24) reported that they provided supplemental materials and information to students about the writing assignments given in their courses. The most common types of supplemental materials and information provided were out-ofclass written explanations (e.g., answers to email requests) and in-class oral explanations (e.g., answers to questions). Figure 2 provides a breakdown of the types and frequency of supplemental materials and instruction faculty members reported providing to their students. Figure 2: Types and Frequency of Supplemental Materials Faculty Members Give to Students 30 25 23 23 In class, oral explanations Out of class, written explanations 20 Frequency 20 17 18 15 15 10 5 0 Marking grids/rubrics In class, written instructions Web-based instructions Out-of-class, oral explanations Type of Supplemental Material Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 16 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Feedback. Faculty members were also asked whether they provided feedback or required students to seek feedback on assignments before they were handed in for grading. Approximately half (51.6%; n=16) indicated that they provided feedback to students on their work prior to handing in writing assignments. This result was quite surprising given the findings from our syllabi analysis, in which very few writing assignments were found to include an opportunity for feedback. The most common type of feedback that faculty members reported providing was voluntary office-hour consultations. See Figure 3 for a breakdown of the types and frequency of feedback that faculty members reported providing to their students. Faculty members were also asked whether they provided written comments on writing assignments after they were marked. A total of four faculty members (13%) indicated that they provided this type of feedback. Support from Department. We were also interested in whether or not faculty members perceived that they received support from their department about writing assignments and instruction. Approximately onequarter of faculty members (26.7%; n=8) reported that their department had either formal or informal discussions about writing assignments and instruction, and 35.5% (n=11) of faculty members were unsure if such discussions took place in their departments. A total of six faculty members (19.4%) reported that their departments provided instruction for grading assignments, and four faculty members (12.9%) reported that their departments had guidelines or recommendations about expectations for undergraduate student writing. Taken together, these results suggest that faculty members perceived their departments as providing relatively little support regarding writing instruction, grading and expectations of student writing. Figure 3: Types and Frequency of Feedback Provided to Students by Professors 30 25 Frequency 20 17 15 10 6 5 1 1 Out-of-class, oral peer review In-class, written peer review 2 2 In-class, oral peer review Required office-hour consulations 3 0 Type of Feedback Out-of-class, Written Voluntary written peer comments on office-hour review unmarked first consultations draft Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 17 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Qualitative Analysis: Faculty Surveys and Focus Group Interviews As indicated above, a total of 31 faculty surveys from five institutions were collected and coded. Our invitation to faculty to participate in focus groups received few responses, so three focus group interviews were conducted with eight professors, all from one institution, though all targeted departments were represented (see Table 3). One focus group was held for each department. Eight themes emerged from the coding and analysis of the surveys and interviews; these are described in detail below and summarized in Table 4. Table 3: Record of Survey and Focus Group Interview Participants No. of Survey Respondents No. of Faculty in Focus Group Institution Discipline Department Institution A Applied Business 14 4 Humanities History 5 1 Science Kinesiology 3 3 Institution B Applied Business 2 - Institution C Science Kinesiology 1 - Institution D Applied Business 5 - Institution E Science Biology 1 - 31 8 Total Theme 1: Faculty Writing Qualifications Although all professors indicated that they felt competent in their own writing proficiency, their perceptions of their ability to teach writing to first- and second-year undergraduates were varied, both within and across departments. While many indicated that they were able to correctly identify grammar and syntax mistakes, some felt inadequate or lacked the tools to explain the various errors using correct terminology. None of the instructors indicated receiving any recent training to teach writing and dated most of their formal writing development to their own graduate and undergraduate careers, or even earlier. Business faculty reported different levels of ability to teach writing and a range of competencies to teach specific elements of writing. Sophia1 stated: 1 Pseudonyms have been used to protect participants’ anonymity. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 18 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines I don’t feel I’m an expert on teaching writing. I think I’m much better at trying to give a succinct small number of feedback [on] items than I used to be. […] But I don’t think I’d be able to teach a writing course. No, let somebody else do that. Luca felt competent to teach writing at the level of structuring an argument, which is where I focus most of my energy. I know bad grammar when I see it, but I can’t always label it correctly, so I don’t get into that too much […] I used to know it better, 25 years ago. I’ve forgotten most of it. Some faculty, like Mindy, noted “that [the business programs] have some [teachers] who enjoy and are experts in [writing], but others who go, whoa.” When asked about how they developed knowledge of writing pedagogy, business faculty referred back to their own undergraduate and graduate experiences (and sometimes even high school). They spoke about drawing on their own experiences in learning to write to inform their teaching practices. Luca said, “[My teaching] would just go back to high school and college courses… what little I can remember. […] Yeah, I took a number of courses as an undergrad and in high school, grammar and basic writing.” Similarly, Emma stated: I didn’t really get any formal grammatical training. I think in school, I think I was in the generation that was not taught formal grammar, I did a bit of Latin roots and stuff, but that was it. […] Oh, and in my undergrad we didn’t have formal writing training, but there were more writing assignments than you would get here normally I think. Mindy indicated that she took two courses in professional writing that were geared more toward creative writing as a way to learn to write. Sophia stated that she had taken writing courses, “but not in the last ten years. I took one in grad school and I took one after I was on contract here.” In sum, these business professors did not identify any specific programs or experiences where they learned how to teach writing. Instead, they drew on their own experiences as students. Similar to business professors, history professors admitted a range of abilities in teaching first- and secondyear students to write. They indicated that they felt proficient in their ability to identify errors in students’ writing and they felt competent to tell students what mistakes to avoid. Most history professors indicated that they felt competent to teach writing, in part because of their expertise in other languages. Despite this general feeling of competency, at least one professor indicated a sense of inadequacy. Edgar, a professor of history of 40 years, said, “I could stand at a blackboard and explain things if I can’t even remember the terms, but there's things I know that I can't even (long pause) I know that I can't explain them.” Edgar had never taken a writing course nor had he ever participated in professional development related to writing instruction. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 19 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Kinesiology professors indicated that they felt competent in their ability to teach writing to first- and second-year students. When asked about their ability to provide writing instruction, most participants attributed their ability to write and give clear writing instruction to their graduate degrees. “I had my supervisor beat it into me,” revealed Natalia. Zoe affirmed this idea: It’s the training you get as a graduate student, because you get so much feedback back and forth with multiple drafts, and depending on your program and depending on the courses you had to take – I’m thinking of some we did, it was very much about writing and evaluating each others’ work. One professor was required to take a writing course during the fourth year of her undergraduate degree because she was registered for a thesis. Similar to the business professors, kinesiology faculty relied upon their own experiences as students to learn how to teach writing. Unlike business professors, however, they more consistently reported feeling competent to teach their students to write. Theme 2: Writing Assignment Variety Within their departments, faculty noted that the amount and type of writing assignments varied, and definite distinctions existed between departments. Business faculty indicated that first- and second-year business students do little writing, a perception borne out when comparing their comments to those of their counterparts in both history and kinesiology. In addition, they indicated that assignments in business focus more on content than on writing development, whereas history and kinesiology assignments appeared to be both content and writing-development driven. Most business professors claimed that first-year students received no writing assignments, and second-year students had limited writing requirements. One interviewee said: We have a variety of courses at the second year level, some more textbook based and those lend themselves much more to multiple choice exams, in part because they often have test banks associated with them. […] Then – so that’s probably about half of our courses at second year level – the other half have writing and or major data analysis work, which often involves some writing as well. Emma suggested that the focus for assignments is “more on the content than on the writing […] at that point I actually don’t care about the grammatical side of things at all, and it’s just one sentence, two sentence answers, if that. Dot [bullet] point answers even.” Reflecting on the business curriculum as a whole, from first to fourth year, Sophia admitted that “third and fourth year students have to do quite a bit of writing. Which, I guess now that we’re talking about it, I realize must come as a bit of a jolt to them.” She also described the typical assignments in the program: A lot of times they [write] on teams, the teams’ reports… so there’s a lot of team business reports, some individual case analysis report type assignments – this would be in third and fourth year – Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 20 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines some industry report-type assignments, and they also do their fair share of straight-on exam writing short answer questions, that kind of thing. Business professors emphasized writing for assessment purposes (e.g., point-form test responses) in the early years and suggested that more business-focused writing tasks occur in third- or fourth-year undergraduate courses. In the history department, professors identified a limited number of discipline-specific assignments given to first- and second-year students (e.g., essays based on a book of documents, research papers analyzing a historical figure). Faculty responses, however, are contradicted by the findings of our syllabi analysis, which showed history courses as requiring the highest number of writing assignments – almost double that of business or science courses. Unfortunately, the limited number of surveys we received back from history faculty, and even greater limitation in focus group interviews, mean that the conclusions we can draw are tentative at best. Similar to history, kinesiology professors indicated that writing assignments for first- and second-year students were planned with disciplinary goals in mind. Zoe explained: In first year, [students] have an individual writing assignment that we've changed a lot over the years – there's usually three or sometimes four different instructors that teach the first year class. We separate it into different sections, but we co-ordinate very much on the kinds of assignments they do. So there may be some slight differences depending on the section and the instructor, but we do have a writing assignment. It used to be purely individual, where they would – they would do a paper that they would hand in, sort of like a one-time-only, hand-it-in-at-the-end-of-the-term [paper]. Zoe claimed that this assignment was ineffective and concluded that for students “during first year, the writing has been notoriously horrendous.” As a department, faculty decided to change the assignment to better scaffold instruction and expectations: [Students] do it in pieces. So it's a little bit at a time. And that has proved to be much better for the student, much better from a grading perspective. So they just do little pieces of the writing assignment, to the culmination at the end, but they get feedback at least three different points across the term. Second-year kinesiology students are required to complete a group assignment, “sort of a more term-paper type of thing, [in] which they have to incorporate good writing as well as the incorporation of research into that assignment” (Natalia). One participant explained the disciplinarily linked expectations of an assignment that required students to summarize an article: to summarize an article in a certain length of time, to a certain word length or space, in terms of taking, you know, what are the key elements in terms of what's the thesis, what's the objectives in Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 21 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines the study, what is the methodology, what did they find, and […] so it's more trying to read literature and trying to synthesize that into a written document of some sort. In sum, the kinesiology professors described a cooperative and coherent approach to the re-design of writing assignments for students in their department. Theme 3: Teaching Strategies and Types of Writing Instruction Survey and interview data reveal the use of many teaching strategies and types of writing instruction across departments. Professors in all three departments used several teaching techniques, both in-class and online, for writing instruction. Some professors also indicated that writing instruction was provided in the syllabus and outside of class. In her approach to writing instruction in business, Emma claimed that she: takes one class, about an hour, to get [the students] to read one of the articles on the reading list, then go through in groups answering the questions [on our class website] and then trying to use the class responses from that to come up with an annotated bibliography. I'm not sure I'm doing it very successfully. […] I also use that lecture – because it's one and a half hours […] to try and teach them what a journal article is, and how to break them down a little bit. Although that's also perhaps not as successful as it could be. While unsure of its effectiveness, Emma’s approach is one example of an in-class teaching strategy. Other strategies included inviting a librarian as a guest lecturer, using podcasts, grading rubrics, and lists of common mistakes in their writing instruction. Writing instruction was thus delivered via the syllabi, in-class, and through the online course management system. Business professors reported instructing students on topics such as formatting, assignment structure, expectations, referencing style and data presentation. Similar to business, the history professors mentioned using a variety of teaching strategies and writing instruction. Edgar explained that he: made a slideshow on how to write, which, you know, it's advice like “start now,” “don't wait until the end,” “do this” […] what is a comma splice, click on this link and go to websites that explain comma splices, I can see who downloads it, right, who looks at it, and very few students bother. History professors posted information about writing to the course management system online and on the syllabus. They also reported providing weekly workshops and examples of previous students’ work to guide their students. Kinesiology professors reported using similar strategies as their colleagues in business and history. In comparison to business and history faculty, however, they commented more frequently on formatting style (e.g., APA). They reported that they incorporate online workshops and provide instructions about Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 22 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines assignment structure online and on handouts. Zoe organized additional tutorial time outside of class time to help students with their writing development. She said: We did an extra tutorial outside of class time that was voluntary, if people wanted to show up, and one of my grad students ran the tutorial. We ended up doing two, and it was to help them with their writing and their APA and all that, and it was extremely well attended. So that was nice, because it was outside of class time. Totally up to them if they wanted to go. That went really well. Tammy felt that it is punitive to tell students “don’t do this” or “don’t plagiarize.” Rather, she showed students examples of what [those things] mean […] so we do try to teach them, here's what it would look like, here's what you're trying to move towards with paraphrasing, initially – usually in first year they tend to just direct quote, direct quote, and I'm a little lenient with them in first year, I tell them that I understand you're probably going to over quote, but that's better at this point than under quoting. Theme 4: Assessment, Feedback and Goals Goals for student writing and assessment practices were varied. While participants indicated that they give students feedback on their writing, there were notable differences in the type and timing of the feedback. This suggests that departmental agendas are not necessarily involved when it comes to the type and amount of feedback given to students; rather, feedback is contingent on the individual instructor. There was also evidence to suggest that these individuals do set specific goals for their first- and second-year students. In general, business professors recognized the importance of providing feedback to students about their writing and identified a variety of feedback strategies including quality scales (e.g., unsatisfactory to exceptional), posting of model writing and identifying grammar errors. These strategies were not always seen as ideal: “I always mark run-on sentences and dangling modifiers, punctuation, and sentence fragments […] usually I end up writing all over what they've written, which is not popular” (Mindy). In contrast, at least one professor did not provide students with detailed feedback on their writing “unless it's […] if there are language issues I'll say there's language and grammar issues in this paragraph” (Sophia). Referring to her perception of the departmental goals for students, Sophia explained: I think one thing that makes us a little different from other faculties and departments is that we are emphasizing business writing much more so than your average kind of thesis writing or even a formal report. We tell [students]: short sentences, short paragraphs, put the punchline first, don't, you know, work through to the end of your argument, tell us right up front what your recommendation is and then lay out your sections. We like them to use headings and subheadings, and so in a way, it's clear what we're after is clarity, readability, “skimability,” maybe. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 23 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines While it appears that the departmental goals in business may be similar, the amount of feedback provided varies among individuals. In history, the one professor interviewed believed that the purpose of his first-year writing assignment is to get students to understand primary sources and how to formulate an argument. In contrast, in his secondyear class, he claimed to write comments on students’ work and make note of students’ use of grammar by using a form “where I check what’s wrong, like comma splices, and then it explains what comma splices are and how to avoid it.” For this professor, feedback appears to come only at the end of the writing process. Similar to professors of business and history, kinesiology professors reported that they provide feedback to students through written comments on assignments, though some reported taking this one step further. Tammy explained that: each individual's going to have their individual feedback, and then collectively I'll look across the group and say, what are sort of the common things that I'm seeing, and then I present that to the whole class. Yeah. So that hopefully helps. And then the [students] that come in – the rare ones that actually come in to review their feedback – then they can get even more. Zoe explained that “we want [students] to be able to come out of this degree being articulate enough to get jobs in various kinds of careers, and they aren't going to be writing 20 page papers in most careers, or a lab report, in most careers.” At the same time that professors reported these broad goals for students’ writing development, the kinesiology professors who were interviewed referred several times to teaching first- and second-year students about citation using American Psychological Association (APA) style. While not acknowledged as a goal, it is clear that accurate use and reporting of sources was a high priority for some faculty members. Theme 5: Department-wide Goals and Guidelines Departmental goals and support for writing pedagogy were not universally reported. Faculty members from both the business and history departments stated that their departments identified no clear departmental goals. Professors in kinesiology reported ongoing discussions in the department about writing instruction and systematic efforts to plan curricula to better prepare students as they progress from first to fourth year. Business professors reported that they were not aware of any departmental guidelines regarding the expectations of first- and second-year students’ writing development. Luca claimed: With over 110 faculty, we never get together to talk about teaching, or best practices, or invite people in to give us advice or professional guidance. And the only talking we do about writing is me generally complaining at the pub with other colleagues about how bad it is. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 24 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Conversely, faculty teaching economics courses reported that: in economics we have a weekly internal seminar series, which one week, every second week is alternate between research and teaching, and so we've actually had sessions where we've discussed what we do to teach writing, […] We have had the writing centre in, on occasion, into particular classes. […] And of course there's quite a bit of informal discussion on what sort of writing assignments we do, so – and other assignments as well. (Emma) Edgar stated that the history department had not “had any formal discussions” pertaining to departmentwide goals for students. In surveys, however, faculty indicated that the department did adopt a new style manual, but many colleagues did not follow through and use it. This suggests that there is a gap between what faculty perceive as a departmental plan for writing and what actions appropriately constitute and support that plan. It also suggests that history faculty members may exert a fair degree of autonomy over curriculum planning rather than act as a collective group. Unlike their counterparts in business and history, interview data in kinesiology revealed that the department is taking clear strides to improve overall coherence of their program. For instance, Tammy explained that: right now the department is trying to sit down and talk about how can we best, which are the best writing courses, what kinds of writing material can we get in there, and different formats. […] So we're in the throes of trying to decide what those types of assignments would look like for first year. Zoe elaborated further: We're making a much more conscious effort to have those [assignments] in our first- and second-year courses right now, so that it's known across the department. In the past it's probably been one or two people knew what one or two people were doing, but what we're attempting to do is make it so it's kind of department policy or departmentally known that this is what we're going to do, this is what whoever teaches 141 or 161 or 181, they're going to have – you can do whatever you want at one level, but you're going to have these kinds of writing pieces, […] That's what we're attempting to do. While the business and history departments show little departmental cohesion in setting program writing goals and guidelines, faculty responses indicated that the economics program and kinesiology departments were trying to implement clear goals and guidelines for their professors and students. In addition to the planning of a coherent curriculum that includes writing, it was notable that kinesiology faculty were passionate and excited as they spoke about these developments. Theme 6: Expectations and View of Student Abilities/Engagement In terms of professors’ expectations and views of student abilities or engagement, there was general consensus among participants in all departments. Overall, professors believed that first- and second-year Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 25 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines students’ writing abilities are weak and student engagement is low. Professors indicated that they held low expectations of first- and second-year students’ ability to write, and there was clear frustration related to their perceptions of students. In business, for example, Luca reported that he had no expectations of students’ ability to write in first- and second-year courses. Mindy also stated flatly, “Very few of our students can write well, very few.” Survey data corroborate the attitudes of the interviewees; participants reported that students “don’t read or listen,” are “incapable of following instructions” and “have poor attitudes.” In addition to the conviction that students have limited writing and academic skills, faculty responses indicated frustration with the state of affairs. Emma rhetorically asked, “What is the economic cost to society of having all these graduates who can't write? It's got to be enormous.” Faculty responses from the history department indicated similar disillusionment to that of their business colleagues: “Just generally, we all agree [student] writing is abominable” (Edgar). Regarding student engagement, Edgar complained that “the fact is the majority of students, and this is one of my biggest complaints, don’t bother to pick up their essays. […] I've seen students pick it up, look at the mark, and as they're walking out just drop the paper in a wastebasket.” Concern was also raised about students’ related skills such as reading, which, in Edgar’s words, would give students “a feel for what makes sense.” In other words, some faculty linked limitations in student writing with limitations in clear and logical thinking. Like their colleagues, kinesiology professors reported that students’ engagement was low and professor frustration high. Zoe, for instance, said: It is frustrating when we've taken the time […] to spend writing all that feedback, and then you don't see that they've made any attempt to correct it. That's frustrating for us, but it's also, it's like, but then [the students are] not getting out of this what [they] need to. That's unfortunate. When asked to identify what she would like to see in student writing, Tammy lamented that “proofreading would be nice.” Summarizing the perceptions of many faculty, she claimed, “We still struggle with our students and their writing. We have good students, [but] the writing is not good.” Theme 7: Challenges: Class Size, Lack of Time, TAs and Resources Faculty responses indicated numerous challenges regarding writing instruction and professors’ ability to include writing assignments in first- and second-year courses. Class size and the lack of time, availability of teaching assistants (TAs) and relevant resources were identified as the most prominent challenges. Class size and a lack of TAs were identified as significant concerns for business faculty members. Emma stated: We have 1700 students in the course altogether, with multiple sections of instructors, so that makes marking writing assignments consistently more difficult. And we have limited TA resources. Very, very Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 26 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines limited TA resources, so it's really out of necessity more than anything [that business and economics has limited writing assignments]. Luca explained further: If you set an assignment for one section, the assignments for the other sections have to be at the same time [according to departmental regulations], and then you've got 150 things to mark at once. And just that volume of things coming in at the same time, especially for writing assignments, makes it quite difficult to manage the marking. Just logistically, right? We've got the hours [for TAs], yes, but the hours at that specific point in time? Maybe not. History professors noted that lack of time posed a significant challenge for the inclusion of writing instruction in class. Edgar reported difficulty in removing course content as a way to make room for writing instruction: I mean the thing is I've got so much… we have a twelve week term, I teach a course that has to cover you know, War and Society, I start back with prehistoric man and I end with terrorism. So I've got all this material to cover, in twelve weeks, and then to take out […] 50 minute lectures – what do I take out to give them? In addition to the perceived lack of time for in-class writing instruction, a survey respondent noted that there was limited time to grade assignments. Professors in kinesiology identified the main challenges to be a lack of TAs and time for writing instruction. Zoe claimed: It's manpower, person power issues. I find myself trying to go to the shortest, quickest, easiest, which isn't necessarily the best, because it's just there's not enough hours to mark, especially when there's no writing support in terms of grad student support or TA support or IA [instructional assistant] support. Furthermore, the lack of TA support was felt to discourage professors from including writing assignments in their first- and second-year courses. Zoe reported adjusting her teaching approach because of a lack of TA support. She said that she had “to be really careful about what I'm doing, I've redesigned courses where I've taken out writing because I don't have time to mark it. So I think the biggest thing is the resource, the people resource – TA support.” Tammy concurred and explained that even if a professor were allocated TA resources, the quality of the TA may not be very good (i.e., the TA may have little writing expertise). Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 27 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Theme 8: Institutional Resources Available Professors in the three departments mostly claimed some knowledge of the institutional resources available for writing instruction, including the writing centre and the library. In particular, they reported that they promote the writing centre as a resource for students. Business faculty members especially identified the writing centre as a helpful resource, though it was clear that their perceptions of the support available was largely remedial. Mindy, for instance, reported that when she “can hardly make heads or tails of [a student’s writing],” she would suggest, “you need to go to the writing centre.” Similarly, Emma indicated that she recommends the writing centre to her students: “I will often say to people, look this is really, this really needs some work, you need to go and talk to the writing centre.” Like his colleagues in business, Edgar reported recommending that his students visit the writing centre. He said, “I send lots […] I mean I send, I often write, I would say, 15-20% of the students I write, you know, ‘you might find it useful to consult the writing centre.’ How many of them follow up on it [is unclear].” Professors from kinesiology also indicated that they promoted the writing centre as a support tool for students. Like those in history, however, they noted that such promotion was no guarantee that students actually used the service. Zoe explained: We let them know about the resources, we sometimes give them the links to all the learning services and encourage them, I sometimes talk about oh hey, you know there's an upcoming study skills or writing centre whatever, and I tell them about it, and my understanding is that that is under-utilized by our students, yes. Summary of Qualitative Findings Table 4: Summary of Key Findings from the Interview and Survey Data Analysis Theme 1: Faculty writing qualifications 2: Writing assignment variety 3: Teaching strategies and types of writing instruction Key Finding  Professors in all three departments indicated their reliance on their own undergraduate and graduate writing experiences in order to increase their competencies to teach writing to first- and second-year students.  Business does not include much writing instruction or assignments in first- and second-year courses.  History and kinesiology professors considered disciplinary goals when planning writing instruction.  A variety of instructional strategies – both in-class and online – were reported. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 28 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Theme Key Finding 5: Department-wide goals and guidelines  Writing instruction emphasized topics such as grammar (e.g., in history) and APA style (e.g., in kinesiology).  Variety exists among interviewees and survey respondents across departments.  Types of feedback provided to students include comments on written assignments, an overview for the whole class, and online comments and discussions.  Kinesiology seemed to have department goals about writing development that were supported by professors. 6: Expectations and view of student abilities/engagement  Professors in all departments viewed students as having a lack of ability or engagement. 7: Challenges  Class size, lack of time and lack of TA support are challenges identified by professors across all three departments.  All three departments note the writing centre as one resource for students outside of class. 4: Assessment, feedback and goals 8: Institutional resources available Discussion This study began by asking two questions: what assignments are university students in their early years required to write, and what instruction do students receive in their programs to help them learn to write these assignments. We found that students in the first and second years of their programs in science (kinesiology, biology), history and business (including economics) write an average of 2.5 assignments in each of their courses. This number of assignments is consistent with earlier data that indicated that university students write about 2.5 assignments per course in a Canadian liberal arts college (Graves, Hyland & Samuels, 2010). Over a typical academic year in which five courses are taken, this would mean that students are writing about 12 assignments per year. Students, therefore, are writing, and given that our data focus on students in the first two years of university, we can say that novice students in particular are being given opportunities to learn to write. This average number of assignments, of course, masks differences between courses and programs, some of which contain little or no writing in first year and some of which require students to systematically write three or more assignments as steps towards completing a larger project. We found, for instance, that history courses contained significantly more writing assignments than did courses in business, which in turn required more writing than did science courses. Our data thus support the perception that students in some programs, such as those in the arts and humanities, have more opportunities to write than do other students, such as those in the sciences or business. So students are writing, but not all students are writing the same amount. Professors were accurate in their assessment of how much writing was required in their departments, responding insightfully when asked to describe the amount of writing that students in their programs were Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 29 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines required to undertake. Their comments suggest that established disciplinary expectations regarding what is taught to entering students may be quite influential. Business faculty indicated that their priority was to present a large number of students with large amounts of subject-matter content, so writing expectations were not prioritized. In history and science, on the other hand, faculty members’ comments identified an expectation that students in their fields should begin learning discipline-specific writing and communication. As a result, history students wrote many assignments and science students were facing increasing numbers of writing assignments. This simple indicator of assignment frequency within courses leads to many other explorations, including comparisons of assignment characteristics between disciplines, consideration of why these characteristics are seen (or not), what they signify and how assignments might be improved. In addition to describing the types of assignments and instruction currently available, this case study identified three barriers to improving student writing in university settings. We describe each below. Assignment and Instruction Descriptions Research in academic writing has identified a number of characteristics associated with effective writing pedagogy (see Bean, 2011), including short, low-stakes assignments (see Elbow, 1997), providing formative feedback, supplying a rubric, identifying a learning goal, and specifying a relevant audience (e.g., Ashbaugh, Johnstone & Warfield, 2002). Our data indicate that, in addition to a moderate average number of assignments (with the caveat of significantly different numbers of assignments between disciplines), the length of assignments we found across the three disciplines is consistent with previous research (Graves, Hyland & Samuels, 2010). When specified in the syllabus, the majority of assignments were four pages or less in length, and the average length of assignment was about five pages. The value of assignments tended to go up as the length increased, meaning that many students did have an opportunity to complete short, low-stakes assignments. In addition, some nested assignments were observed, and learning goals were commonly identified, particularly in business. Unfortunately, many assignments (60%) did not contain guidance on how long a completed assignment should be, almost half had uninformative general labels (“paper” or “assignment”), few (less than 8%) included rubrics, even fewer (less than 5%) provided for inprocess feedback – these were almost all in history – and almost no assignments (less than 2%) specified any audience other than the professor or TA. In short, the assignments given to first- and second-year students demonstrated an uneven mixture of effective pedagogical elements along with a greater proportion of missed opportunities for student instruction. Professors indicated in their surveys and interviews that they used a wide variety of instructional strategies to teach writing, in contrast to the relatively conventional assignment design we found through syllabi analysis. Professors used online resources and distributed handouts, provided in-class and extracurricular workshops as well as extra tutorials on writing, used models of exemplary texts, and discussed expectations and rubrics with students. They indicated awareness of campus resources such as the library and the writing centre and claimed to use these resources. Their commitment to writing instruction was counterbalanced, however, by limitations in their knowledge of effective writing pedagogy. For instance feedback, when provided, was often focused on error identification and checklists rather than interaction with student Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 30 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines authors. Similarly, resources and handouts were sometimes identified as generic “tip sheets” rather than genre-specific guides. Finally, half of all instructors claimed to provide feedback or instruction on student writing, despite the finding from our syllabi analysis that indicated such feedback was rarely incorporated. The explanation for this anomaly is that professors viewed office hours, responding to emails and students’ in-class questions as the primary means by which writing instruction was given. Whether this view of instruction is reasonable or productive is debatable. Also notable in professors’ comments was their low assessment of students’ writing abilities and engagement with academic work, as well as their frustration. In contrast, professors in departments that actively promoted collaborative planning of program curricula to include writing appeared to be moving beyond identifying concerns about student abilities to addressing them. Three Barriers to Improving Student Writing (1) Lack of Resources Professors identified large class sizes, limited numbers of teaching assistants (TAs) and rigid departmental rules on the use of available resources as impediments to more effective writing instruction in their disciplines. In high-enrolment disciplines like business, the existence of large first-year classes with few TAs was cited as a barrier to including writing instruction because marking large numbers of assignments would be prohibitive. In smaller classes like history, the barrier was one of time, i.e., how to include sufficient content instruction and writing instruction in a short, 13-week period. Other considerations mentioned were the lack of time for marking student assignments and the uneven ability level of TAs to support writing instruction. Professors, in other words, identified writing instruction as a labour-intensive and time-intensive activity and indicated that they felt their institutions did not provide them with adequate resources to support this activity. (2) Low Level of Student Abilities and Engagement A consistent theme across professors’ responses was a criticism of students’ level of preparedness to write, as well as their engagement in academic activities. Although teacher criticism of students may be easily dismissed as long-existing complaints, it is important to recognize that faculty members’ perceptions of students are an important element in the university context of teaching and learning. Concerns regarding students’ failure to follow instructions, ignorance of basic language features and poor reading skills are not simply items of academic skills deficits but the identification of student characteristics felt to be beyond professors’ ability to “fix.” Some faculty linked these concerns with access issues, i.e., the lowering of entrance standards. Across all disciplines, faculty voiced low or no expectations about students’ ability to write or communicate, most often in tones of resignation and frustration. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 31 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines (3) Lack of Departmental Support Two elements regarding departmental supports are notable in their omission. First, many faculty noted that while they themselves felt competent as writers, they felt poorly prepared to teach writing. Few faculty had taken any courses in writing instruction or identified this as an option in their own professional development. Most relied on their own experiences as graduate students for insight into how students learn to write in their discipline. Interestingly, faculty from the history department identified their knowledge of a second language as an important factor in being able to teach students to write. Overall, faculty acknowledged that they lacked formal knowledge of writing pedagogy, identified no opportunities within their departments for such professional improvement, and instead relied on informal experience to guide their instruction. Second, faculty were asked about departmental goals for writing instruction and whether these were articulated and addressed in their program’s curriculum. Business and history faculty provided mixed responses, suggesting that clear departmental goals were not in place. This lack of coherent program planning to include writing instruction suggests that the resources that might support such programming are also unavailable. While some attempts were made to specifying departmental writing expectations – such as through the adoption of a common style guide in history – professors did not consistently follow these initiatives, indicating that individuals rather than departments hold the balance of power in curriculum planning. Such imbalances result in an undermining of the ability of departments to plan and support writing instruction. In science, a collaborative effort involving many professors was directed towards designing a systematic progression of writing assignments to develop identified disciplinary writing skills. It is not clear why this kinesiology department is successfully progressing towards coherent and systematic writing instruction when similar-sized departments falter. It is notable, however, that the largest number of volunteers for our faculty focus group came from this department. Limitations We acknowledge that there are certain limitations regarding our methods of data collection. As discussed earlier, the process of syllabi analysis has been criticized in the past because syllabi may not accurately represent the amount of writing actually performed by students, and descriptions of assignments may be missing or incomplete in the syllabus. Syllabi analysis has been used successfully in past studies, however, and we believe that any shortcomings in the resulting data can be supplemented through additional sources of information, such as surveys or focus groups, both of which we used. The issue of whether the group of professors who responded to our online survey and participated in focus groups was a truly representative sample of undergraduate instructors is also noted, especially given the small sample sizes from each university. Since responding to the survey was entirely voluntary, those who did respond may have been more likely to already be interested in the issue of writing instruction and have strong views on writing. Whether these professors would be more likely to view writing positively or negatively is not clear. Similarly, participants in the focus groups were selected because they indicated on Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 32 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines their returned surveys that they would be willing to participate. Those who were interviewed were therefore likely to be more interested in issues concerning writing instruction than other faculty. While greater participation from faculty across all departments would have been preferable, we believe the data collected do provide some indication of what faculty members in general perceive about writing. In addition, because we had a relatively small number of professors who completed the online survey and the focus group interview, we cannot claim that the data are representative of any department nor are we able to draw valid comparisons between disciplines or institutions because the number of participants was too small. Ideally, we would have conducted focus groups at all of the institutions where we gathered syllabi data. While we did not set out to gather data about students’ perceptions of writing instruction, this might be a productive addition for future research. Collecting and analyzing data from first- and second-year students, as well as graduate students or English language learners, would provide insight about their perceptions about writing instruction and skill development and would allow for possible comparisons between student and professor perceptions. Conclusion and Avenues for Further Investigation Findings from this study provide evidence that student writing at university is poorly addressed in any structured, coherent way. The picture of writing across a variety of disciplines is one of diverse experiences, with some students introduced early and often to opportunities for relevant writing practice, and other students facing few opportunities to improve their writing and communication skills. The instruction that students receive is likely to be based on professors’ idiosyncratic academic experiences rather than any formal training in writing instruction. Finally, the barriers to more effective instruction that we identified appear to be systemic and result in a good deal of faculty frustration. Our findings suggest that action at multiple levels may improve the quality of writing instruction for students and lead to more effective student writing. These levels include the institutional, the departmental, as well as the individual level. Program administrators may use our findings to address gaps in writing instruction within their departments and to plan for an improved incorporation of writing-focused learning outcomes across designated university units. In particular, the three barriers to improving writing instruction need to be recognized by upper administration and policy makers as prominent components to address when considering what is desirable in terms of students’ experiences and learning outcomes. Departments may recognize the need to study in more detail their own practices in comparison to other departments and with larger sample sizes of faculty members. Such studies may improve the ability to draw conclusions about university-wide and department-wide practices and effective strategies for implementing curricular change. At the individual level, faculty may recognize the benefits of collaborative approaches to the planning of writing instruction rather than relying primarily on their own experiences. Such approaches may also influence the levels of frustration felt by individual faculty. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 33 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Finally, this research moves the conversation about writing away from a critique of skills deficits to a more productive discussion about integrating writing expectations and instruction across Ontario’s universities. Such a discussion will be necessary if meeting expectations regarding students’ writing abilities is a priority. Future studies exploring the successes and challenges of current departmental and institutional supports may not only provide valuable information about the state of writing instruction, but also enable the identification of potential benchmarks for effective writing instruction at the university level. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 34 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines References Ashbaugh, H., Johnstone, K. M., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Outcome assessment of a writing-skill improvement initiative: Results and methodological implications. Issues in Accounting Education, 17(2), 123-148. Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Bean, J. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bloom, M. R., & Kitagawa, K. G. (1999). Understanding employability skills. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.accc.ca/wp-content/uploads/archive/es-ce/257_99.pdf Bogert, J., & Butt, D. (1996). Communication instruction in MBA programs: A survey of syllabi. Business Communication Quarterly, 59, 20-44. Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 113-134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Canadian Chamber of Commerce (2012). Canada’s skill crisis: What we heard. Ottawa: Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Canesco, G., & Byrd, P. (1989). Writing required in graduate courses in business administration. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 305-316. Career Builder (2015, April 23). Majority of companies plan to hire recent college graduates, according to careerbuilder.ca survey. Retrieved from http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1523027/majority-ofcompanies-plan-to-hire-recent-college-graduates-according-to-careerbuilder-ca-survey Clary-Lemon, J. (2009). Shifting tradition: Writing research in Canada. American Review of Canadian Studies, 39(2), 94-111. Elbow, P. (1997). High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing. New directions for teaching and learning, 69, 5-13. Goldberger, E. (2014, April 24). Everyone should teach writing. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/04/24/essay-why-all-faculty-need-consider-teachingwriting-their-responsibility Graves, R. (2013, September). Why students struggle with writing. University Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/why-students-struggle-with-writing/ Graves, R. (2014, January). Five strategies to improve writing in your courses. University Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/career-advice-article/five-strategies-to-improvewriting-in-your-courses/ Graves, R., Hyland, T., & Samuels, B. M. (2010). Undergraduate writing assignments: An analysis of syllabi at one Canadian college. Written Communication, 27(3), 293-317. Retrieved from http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/27/3/293.full.pdf Graves, R., Parker, A., & Marcynuk, K. (2013). Undergraduate writing assignments in engineering: Some preliminary findings. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. Retrieved from http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/4647/4629 Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 35 �Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario’s Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines Graves, R., Williams, A., Hyland, T., Jewinski, J., Parker, A., Samuels, B., McKeown, M., Borrows, G., Shaw, G., & Slomp, D. (2014). Writing assignments and curricular change: Implications from seven institutions. Panel presentation at the Canadian Association for the Study or Discourse and Writing, St. Catharine’s, Ontario. Holland, K. (2013, November 11). Why Johnny can't write, and why employers are mad. CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/101176249 MacQueen, K. (2013, November 1). The flap over the fluency gap. Maclean's. Retrieved from http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-flap-over-the-fluency-gap/ Melzer, D. (2003). Assignments across the curriculum: A survey of college writing. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 6(1). Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/archhives.cfm Melzer, D. (2009). Writing assignments across the curriculum: A national study of college writing. College Composition and Communication, 61, W240-261. O’Day Nicolas, M., & Annous, S. (2013). Assessing WAC elements in business syllabi. Business Communication Quarterly, 20(3), 1-16. OECD (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20%28eng%29--FINAL%2020%20June%202013.pdf Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (2007). Undergraduate degree level expectations. Retrieved from http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/reports/pdfs/university-undergraduate-degree-levelexpectations Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (2010). Quality assurance framework. Retrieved from http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/reports/pdfs/quality-assurance-framework-and-guide Samuels, B., & McDonald, K. (2015, April 17). Writing assignments in the Faculty of Science: Program profiles of seven departments. Paper presented at the Writing in the STEAM Fields: Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math conference, University of Alberta. Stanny, C., Gonzalez, M., & McGowan, B. (2014). Assessing the culture of teaching and learning through a syllabus review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02602938.2014.956684 Russell, D. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines. Second ed. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. The Conference Board of Canada (2014). Employability Skills 2000+. Retrieved from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/learning-tools/employability-skills.aspx Zhu, W. (2004). Writing in business courses: An analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2), 111-135. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario 36 �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource External Links and Documents Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource HEQCO Writing Assignments and Instruction at Ontario's Publicly Funded Universities: A View from Three Disciplines HEQCO Instruction Writing Assignments https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/2e7ade030e845a5be7f69e2448ac368c.pdf f83d8157e5bfacf15e488040ba927d50 PDF Text Text Vocabulary, Grammar, and Conventions Checklist for Proofreading Vocabulary / Word Choice Have I checked that: ☐ I used teaching-specific vocabulary when possible? ☐ I used precise and accurate wording whenever possible? (i.e., “things” or “stuff” or “a lot”) ☐ I used the following words correctly? ☐ While/Although * ☐ There/their/they’re * ☐ Lets/let’s * ☐ As/because/since * ☐ To/too/two * ☐ Constantly/always vs consistently * ☐ Either/or; neither/nor * ☐ Your/you’re * ☐ Based off / based on/upon * ☐ That/which * ☐ Its/it’s * ☐ I used the “ed” past tense marker rather than “t”? (spelt/learnt/dreamt) * ☐ I used plural and possessive markers correctly every time? (s/’s/s’) * * Use find/replace function to check each of these! Sentence Structure Have I checked that: ☐ My sentences all make sense and are not awkward? ☐ My sentences are complete with neither fragments nor run-on sentences? ☐ My sentences do not end with prepositions (to/from/etc.)? ☐ My clauses agree in each sentence? ☐ Everything is in the same tense (past/present/future or, different tenses make sense) ☐ My pronoun use matches (including he/she vs their or they) ☐ Everything is singular or plural and matches throughout the sentence or paragraph ☐ I have consistently used either first, second, or third person perspective. I have avoided using vague generalized pronouns without explaining to whom those pronouns refer. ☐ In longer sentences where clauses are separated by commas (or semicolons), every clause in the list has the same structure. Punctuation and Conventions Have I checked that: ☐ Everything is spelled correctly? ☐ All sentences and proper nouns are capitalized? ☐ My end punctuation is correct and especially where it interacts with parentheses or quotation marks? ☐ I have used commas, semicolons, and colons correctly? Comma use does not result in strange clauses? I have not forgotten the commas for items in a list (including before the conjunction)? ☐ All quotation marks have both beginning and ending marks present. All direct quotes are contained within quotation marks or indented as block quotes if they exceed 42 words. ☐ My in-text citations are correct? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Review Assessment Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EvVUz36HPxboyP75gmbj2spaNhdte-PHKU4-aLglCMw/edit?usp=sharing" title="Education Proofreading Checklist" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Education Proofreading Checklist</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Proofreading Checklist Subject The topic of the resource EDUC EDUC Peer Review Proofreading https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/1ded0dc8fef7ebdfa71f4aed158b1671.pdf c8e69b94ab3bd674316418f10143c056 PDF Text Text Feedback on Vocabulary, Grammar, and Conventions Name: Click here to enter text. Course Code and Cohort: Click here to enter text. Assignment Name: Click here to enter text. Vocabulary / Word Choice ☐ Some words are used incorrectly Examples: Click here to enter text. ☐ Uses teaching terms incorrectly Examples: Click here to enter text. ☐ While/Although ☐ There/their/they’re ☐ Lets/let’s ☐ As/because/since ☐ To/too/two ☐ Constantly/always vs consistently ☐ Either/or; neither/nor ☐ Your/you’re ☐ Based off vs based on/ upon ☐ That/which ☐ Its/it’s ☐ Incorrect past-tense construction: (spelt/learnt/dreamt) ☐ Incorrect plural or possessive construction: (s/’s/s’) Sentence Structure Awkward clause order or awkward sentences Run-on sentences Incomplete sentences Sentences or clauses that end with prepositions Inconsistent or improper tense use/agreement (past/present/future) Pronoun agreement errors (including he/she vs their or they) Singular-plural agreement errors Inconsistent use of singular-plural or non-agreement Inconsistent use of first, second, or third perspective, or perspective is sometimes confusing, or use of vague, universal pronouns (the societal We, for example) ☐ Non-parallel clausal structure ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Punctuation and Conventions Errors in spelling Examples: Click here to enter text. Capitalization errors End punctuation errors Incorrect or inconsistent use of commas – comma splices or doesn’t use the Oxford comma for lists ☐ Incorrect use of semicolons or colons ☐ Incorrect use of quotation marks or errors in quotation mark use ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Review Assessment Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13kpZfwJ2vzIEOka7Nh2bECC402aOX8y5FfZ0E4nI4KQ/edit?usp=sharing" title="Education Feedback on Vocabulary" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Education Feedback on Vocabulary</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Feedback on Vocabulary, Grammar, and Conventions Subject The topic of the resource EDUC EDUC Feedback Grammar Peer Review Vocabulary https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/ade26676ffe116c05e125a0f2f67ad23.pdf 85a1b7ce72fa25d8af879d5b383a2545 PDF Text Text FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TERM PAPER PEER REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS You will review each other’s first draft of your term paper. The goals of a peer review are to: 1) help each other to improve your writing skills; 2) strengthen your editing skills; and 3) develop a quality final term paper. On the due date for the first draft of the term paper, each student’s paper will be given to one other student to review. The peer reviewer is assessing the author’s term paper for 1) content, 2) organization, 3) grammar and style and 4) formatting. The peer reviewer will not assign a mark to the paper being reviewed. The peer reviewer will receive a mark out of 5%, based on completion of the attached Term Paper Peer Review Form. Your mark will be based on the quality of the peer review (suggestions for improvement in grammar and style, suggestions for improvement in content and analysis, etc.). The author will take into account the peer reviewer’s comments in revising the term paper. STEPS: 1. Read the whole paper at least once. Digest the whole before you begin your feedback. 2. Mark the paper itself, using the Term Paper Organization handout and checking formatting against the Faculty of Natural Resources Management Writing Manual and Style Guide (or your preferred style). 3. Using the attached form, write a summary of your peer review addressing: 1) content, 2) organization, 3) grammar and style and 4) formatting. At the top of the peer review include the course number, your name, the paper author’s name and term paper topic. When you have completed the review, make a copy. Attach one copy to the term paper for the author and leave the other loose for marking by the course Teaching Assistant. You will be assigned a mark out of 5% for this peer review. FURTHER READING: The McGraw-Hill Companies. 2001. Peer Review Guidelines. http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/maner/resources/peerreview.htm. Nov. 6, 2015. Peggy Smith October 2014 �FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TERM PAPER PEER REVIEW FORM (hand in two (2) copies) Course: Peer Reviewer’s Name: Paper Author’s Name: Term Paper Topic: PEER REVIEW (Use back of sheet if necessary.): 1. CONTENT 2. ORGANIZATION 3. GRAMMAR & STYLE 4. FORMATTING � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Review Assessment Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P6bDsPhcSUBYobK6NbblTOr-qZUIcM_w662tqEGkJqE/edit?usp=sharing" title="NRMT Peer Review Term Paper Instructions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NRMT Term Paper Peer Review Instructions</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NRMT Term Paper Review Instructions Subject The topic of the resource NRMT NRMT Peer Review Term Paper