|
To
begin our data-gathering, we’ll look closely at our curricula,
our teaching performance and professional development, and our
students’ experiences and performances in PWR 1, PWR 2,
Writing in the Major, and the Stanford Writing Center. Since,
like all rigorous writing programs, we have been engaged in ongoing
evaluation, revision, and development of our program, we have
at least six years of data to draw on: course descriptions, syllabi,
and related teaching materials; student evaluations and grades
as well as the findings of a number of focus group discussions
with students and testimonials from former students; instructor
teaching portfolios and self-reflections, annual review letters,
and lists of publications, presentations, and awards. In addition,
we plan to convene student focus groups for PWR 1, PWR 2, WIM,
and the SWC and to survey students and instructors about their
expectations of and experiences in PWR. Finally, we will compare
a sample of first-year student writing from fall 2001 with a sample
from fall 2006 as one way of gauging the quality of our students’
work.
This list is daunting, representing as it does a mountain of data
that our committees will need to gather and then analyze. With
any luck, we’ll kick off the data-gathering projects during
November, 2006 and conclude by mid-winter term. That will give
us a month or so to synthesize findings and to write a report
that will detail our accomplishments, lay out plans for development,
and address challenges or concerns. We are scheduled to present
our self-study to the Faculty Senate Committee on University Standards
and Policies (CUSP) on May 25, 2007. At that time, CUSP will respond
to our report and perhaps ask us to provide additional information
or make recommendations to us for improving the report or our
Program. The resulting revised and amended report will then be
given to the PWR University Review Committee, probably during
fall of 2007, and the formal review will begin. Eventually, the
Faculty Senate will receive the final report of the PWR University
Review Committee and will take action to renew or amend the Program.
So a long but exciting road lies before us, one that should lead
us to a deeper appreciation of the work we’ve done—and
the work we still have before us. Given what we’ve been
able to do together in the last six years, my guess is that we
will meet this new challenge with energy, enthusiasm, insight,
and ongoing commitment to our central mission: creating and sustaining
a vibrant culture of writing at Stanford University.
|
