Running Head: CGCC Writing Program Analysis 1

CGCC Writing Program Analysis

D18
Chandler Gilbert Community-College
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 2

Writing Program Analysis

An academic structure of a writing program consists of course objectives listed and the

strategies in which the writing program meets them. Full analysis of various writing programs

provides insight on specific instances that could possibly highlight its evident flaws and

strengths. For my choice of writing program, I selected the CCL Division, which is known to be

Chandler Gilbert Community-College’s head writing program. Due to my role as a student here

on campus, I’ll attempt to keep my arguments unbiased according to the resources found. This

full analysis will cover primarily ENG102, rather than the program as a whole. Because of this

disclaimer, the full writing program will not be completely assessed. However, English 102 is a

prerequisite for any college or degree one might be striving for, thus allowing for reliable and

useful insight. The CCL Division has plenty of essential resources listed among the website.

These resources will be applied and compared to other national programs in order to fully

comprehend the system itself. I’m studying the CGCC writing program and their fundamentals to

fully understand the logistics and efficiency of the division itself alongside comparing it to

similar instances in which methods are entirely differed or similar by various aspects. Analyzing

these attributes will result through the questions of philosophy and goals, sequence of

assignments, and the evaluation process of student work.

Every program should initially list the goals and objectives of the course itself. This

prepares the student for what’s to come and provides direct foresight into the course. What are

the philosophy and goals of the writing program(s) at your institution? It is essentially the “game

plan” for the class, similar to the syllabus. However, should never be too specific, and is mostly

applied to the class curriculum as a primary objective rather than a secondary. Edward White

directly writes about a general consensus of writing programs, and how they become successful
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 3

by laying out the goals initially for the students. “Academic programs, like people, most fully

articulate their goals by their behavior, not by their statements. Nonetheless, a statement of the

philosophy and goals of the writing program can be a valuable document. Its preparation forces

each segment of the program to define what it is doing and why and to connect its particular

goals with institutional goals. Thus, the preparation and the adoption of such a document

logically follow an institutional self-assessment” (White). Provide the writers with core aspects

puts everyone on the same page, so to say. Utilizing the aspects, CGCC’s writing division

provide 9 goals and objectives for first year college students. Some examples of these goals are

included under the various tabs listed. “Understand the purpose, audience, self, and subject

matter shape writing. Understand that writing can be self-empowering. Develop self-awareness

in terms of evaluating their own writing process(es)” (Finn). The CCL Division does a great job

of informing the first-year students about the objectives of college writing. It’s clear that these

expectations are for more demanding then college students, but mostly speaks in terms of

fundamental writing objectives.

In fact, Carleton College and their program wrote a full handbook on their specific

writing program. They even listed out their primary concern for their job as a writing program.

“Faculty development curricula should include instruction on how to articulate course learning

goals” (Rutz). According to Carol Rutz, the director of Carleton College’s writing program,

writing is a primary factor of the college itself. “Writing had been a staple of the curriculum

since the college’s founding” (Rutz). Keep in mind, nowhere in CGCC’s program does it state

that the writing program is one of their true perks as a college. Instead, they provide general

guidelines and go from there. However, this whole pamphlet seems a bit overwhelming a college

student myself. Although it provides substantial amount of information regarding courses,

CGCC Writing Program Analysis 4

professors, and goals, these 6 pages of vital attributes seems a bit daunting to say the least. The

goals and objective of the program are very similar to the CCL Division as a whole. Goals such

as being able to prepare essays adequately and the ability to develop self-awareness through

writing are shared on both documents. According to my findings and research, I do think CGCC

can work on this area specific to the guidelines of the question. However, they do have the

general expectations of listing out the program’s goals and providing a meaningful amount on

information such as the director or mentioning “first year composition goals.”

A major aspect of a college program writing institution is how they go about structuring

the development of essays. In simpler terms, how is the class organized so the students can fully

understand the material of the course and become successful doing so? What is the logical basis

for the sequence of assignments within each course? How does that sequence relate to the goals

and philosophy of the program? Each writing or reading assignment should relate to the main

essays of the course and

reiterate the core

components of the

assignment. A teacher

example I’d like to provide

is Professor Fields class

setup. According to the

picture on the left, he

provides an enormous

number of documents that

will aid our overall project assignments. The specific way he structures his class meets this
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 5

specific standard from the WPA Outcomes Statement, due to the fact that he provides a

substantial amount of required reading that relate to the overall essays. Not only are there several

out-of-class assignments relating to the projects, but he goes incredibly in-depth regarding basic

topics of writing that could attribute to our papers.

CGCC’s writing program does briefly speak on the stages of the writing process and how

one achieves a successful essay. “Develop self-awareness in terms of evaluating their own

writing process(es). Understand the relevance to effective writing of the discovery stages in the

process. Understand the collaborative and social aspects of writing process, and the benefits

thereof” (Finn). It seems as if CGCC’s goal accurately describes the WPA Questions correctly,

however, they seem to be focusing on the concept of social awareness. In comparison, John Jay

College is very similar in terms of their program goals in terms of course sequence.

“Our writing program strives to offer all students at the college a consistent and

equivalent writing experience, regardless of what semester or in what section they enroll, as well

as a coherent trajectory, where students encounter similar learning processes and literacy tasks

throughout the course sequence. To ensure this consistency and coherence, our programmatic

stakeholders designed program assessment to have direct impact on classroom learning by

following multiple formative and summative assessments in an inquiry-based practice driven by

local curricular contexts” (McCormack). Consistent attributes of social awareness on a local

level is what both programs deem to strive for. This is essential for any writing program to

provide a consistent basis on any level and to write about political issues going on amongst the

world. I think CGCC’s program does a fantastic job sequencing the assignments together and

providing the student with necessary resources in order to achieve the goals necessary.

According to Murray State’s writing program, they also practice a similar identity. “The first-
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 6

year composition requirement at Murray State University was revised in 2008 from a 6-credit-

hour, two-semester sequence to a 4-credit-hour, one-semester course. The revision overtly

emphasizes critical reading, writing, and inquiry, while addressing the realities of the institution's

resources for teaching first-year composition” (Walker). The query has been indefinitely met for

this category revolving around adequate sequence, specifically for the CCL Division.

Evaluating student writing is another vital concern for any writing program. It should

definitely be included specifically on the program’s website, or on the instructor’s syllabus. In

my opinion, the rubric for any writing assignment should be provided beforehand, possibly in the

assignment’s instruction page. What procedures do faculty use in evaluating students' writing

(e.g., letter grades on each paper, letter grades on some papers only, no grades until the end of

the course)? On what bases (standards) do faculty evaluate papers? My English professor allows

the students to peer review one another, specifically to hone in our mastery level of English and

have the ability to assess other writers based upon our own experiences. I interviewed a

classmate by the name of Brennan Lopez, and he speaks against Professor Fields peer revision

process. “I completely disagree with the process of relying on other student for our own grade.

Especially when we all paid for the class” (Lopez). His exaggeration is a common argument

many make about the process itself. Allowing other student to evaluate and grade your own

writing is a bit skeptical. However, I’ve had no problem with the feedback I’ve received, positive

or negative. If one provides reasoning behind the score, I’m perfectly fine with it. CGCC’s

overall grading rubric indicates what is required for an A, B, C, D, and F paper. They

professionally list out necessary components in order to achieve desired grade level. Alongside

providing their 3 main qualities of college-level writing. These include rhetorical knowledge,
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 7

critical thinking, and knowledge of basic conventions. All these components are listed under the

“ENG 102 Grading Rubric”

document. In my opinion,

instructors should also provide

basic information revolving

around criteria of a specific

grade. In many cases, they

should refer to documents like

this in order to keep the

program consistent. Students

tend to refer to rubrics in order

to complete assignments, and

that’s vital when reading the

core components of each letter

grade. This specific writing

program analyzes the students by 6 specific criterions. “Each student's paper received six scores,

which represented the following traits: topic development, organization, details, wording,

sentences, and mechanics. As I thought about these six traits, I realized the value in knowing

how students performed in these six areas. If I had this information before visiting classrooms, I

would be able to use the assessment to inform my instruction” (Shapiro). The professor

essentially will utilize the feedback not only to grade students, but to improve his lectures and

focus on these specific writing topics. Later in the article, he also mentions how the scores would

improve drastically based on how much time was spent on the trait or criteria. This 6-Traid
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 8

model seems beneficial for adapting to the student’s struggles and binding them together to

create writing strengths. “We never used to think much about the assessment of writing. We

resented all the grading of papers and sorting of students but went about it as a grim duty,

generally doing unto our students as our professors had done unto us” (White). White describes

the evaluation process to be a pass down of teachers in the pass. We typically just go by what our

own professors had done to us, and grade in a very similar fashion, thus promoting no change.

CGCC’s writing program tends to follow these same attributes similar to my high school

experience. There would always be a page that indicated the proper ways to achieve a specific

grade and list out the flaws of the paper itself. CGCC’s writing program does a good job

connecting the concept of E-Portfolios with its assignments. There have been several findings

relating to the concept of these and many find them entirely beneficial. “Findings indicate that

while both types of portfolios, electronic and traditional paper, contribute positively to students'

learning related to "connections to the course," students completing an ePortfolio show

heightened levels of metacognition in relation to "connections to learning" and "connections to

career or personal goals” (Bowman). Connecting all the material is vital for greater

understanding of writing and the program in which the students are participating in.

In conclusion, the CCL Division is deemed worthy of a writing program. However, there

are some major flaws I discovered throughout my research. The ability to correlate the goals and

objectives with the work itself has been found within the system. The ability to order the

assignments in a logical way has also been seen. Alongside the evaluation process is listed on the

CGCC writing website. Promoting a productive learning environment is essential to any writing

program. I also find that CGCC’s biggest strength as a writing program is their ability to give the

student’s a voice in the community and allow them to become socially aware. “In these Graduate
CGCC Writing Program Analysis 9

Studies courses, students become ethnographers of the research and writing practices of their

disciplines while writing their own texts and developing their professional identities”

(Sundstorm). According to the University of Kansas, their overall goal is to promote the same

aspect. The writing program known as the CCL Division is deemed successful by WPA means. I

found that my research outlines the pros and cons of the division itself and reveals areas of

improvement. As a student of the Chandler Gilbert Community-College, I see this program as a

major achievement as they meet the basic needs stated in the WPA guidelines. Creating an

environment in which college students can understand and analyze their program is vital to any

writing community as a whole.

CGCC Writing Program Analysis 10

References

Bowman, J., Lowe, B. J., Sabourin, K., & Sweet, C. S. (2016). The Use of ePortfolios to Support

Metacognitive Practice in a First-Year Writing Program. International Journal Of

Eportfolio, 6(1), 1-22.

Finn, Patrick. “Composition, Creative Writing & Literature.” English Language Faculty

Chandler-Gilbert Community College, www.cgc.edu/Academics/english/Pages/First-

Year-Writing.aspx.

Lopez, Brennan. (2018, May 3). Personal Interview.

McCormack, T., & McBeth, M. (2016). Equal Opportunity Programming and Optimistic

Program Assessment: First-Year Writing Program Design and Assessment at John Jay

College of Criminal Justice. Composition Forum, 33

Rutz, C., & Grawe, N. D. (2017). How Writing Program Best Practices Have Transformed

Carleton College. Peer Review, 19(1), 13-16

Shapiro, L. (2004). A Writing Program That Scores With the 6-Trait Model. New England

Reading Association Journal, 40(2), 35-40.

Sundstrom, C. J. (2014). The Graduate Writing Program at the University of Kansas: An Inter-

Disciplinary, Rhetorical Genre-Based Approach to Developing Professional

Identities. Composition Forum, 29

Walker, P., & Myers, E. (2011). Utilizing Strategic Assessment to Support FYC Curricular

Revision at Murray State University. Composition Forum, 24

CGCC Writing Program Analysis 11

White, Edward M. Developing Successful College Writing Programs. Calendar Islands

Publishers, 1998.

White, E. M. (2004). THE CHANGING FACE OF WRITING ASSESSMENT. Composition

Studies, 32(1), 109-116.