An Overview

 English 1E is a Credit/No Credit course based on a portfolio the student submits at the end of the semester. Only those students who satisfactorily complete coursework and meet their instructors’ minimum course requirements may submit portfolios for final review. That review is conducted by English 1E instructors reading in small groups. Each portfolio is read by at least two instructors, one of whom is the teacher of record. To pass English 1E and become eligible to take a 100-level composition course, the student must receive two “passing” scores on the portfolio.

 Write with confidence and increased fluency  Invent ideas, arrange material, draft, revise, proofread, and edit their own writing in order to produce coherent academic essays  Write with awareness of audience and purpose by establishing and maintaining a focus, adequately supporting claims, providing analysis, and organizing material effectively.

 Learn to analyze potential sources and integrate source material into their own work  Give and receive constructive responses to written work. These objectives require attention to full process, thesis-driven essays from the beginning of the semester.

 “Minimum course requirements” are the assigned tasks and activities intended to help students achieve course outcomes and pass the final portfolio reading.  Students must meet the instructor’s course requirements to qualify for portfolio review. Typically, instructors choose between two basic systems for determining that students have crossed the “minimum” threshold: 1) a point system that stipulates a minimum number of points to be earned, or 2) a contract system that outlines a minimum amount of work to be satisfactorily completed.  Types of assignments and methods of assessing them vary. However, because the common portfolio assessment assumes consistency in what instructors expect of their students, minimum course requirements are constrained in the following ways:

 Instructors should not design minimum course requirements so lenient that advancement to portfolio review is “automatic.” At the same time, instructors should not design requirements so rigid that they violate the letter and spirit of university policies on attendance and grading.  Instructors must assign and require “satisfactory completion” of no fewer than 3 formal essays. They must also assign a minimum of 2 timed essays.

 Although narrative/descriptive writing and summary can be used to support claims, instructors should avoid giving assignments that lead students to produce essays that are primarily summary or narration/description.  Instructors must clearly spell out what “satisfactory completion” of an essay assignment means. In the process, they must give regular, clear feedback not only to help students to improve their writing, but also to update them on their progress toward achieving “portfolio-ready” work. This means that evaluation of work completed and recommendations for revision should be tied to the expectations delineated in the portfolio scoring guide.

 Not all students who meet the course requirements will pass the portfolio; despite their efforts, some will not make the developmental progress necessary to accomplish this in 15 weeks. So it is important that students and instructors communicate about writing progress throughout the semester. Instructors’ expectations and methods of evaluation should be clearly spelled out in syllabi or other course-specific documents. Students who do not understand their instructors’ grading system should ask for clarification. Under no circumstances should a student think s/he is doing “high level” work all semester only to fail the final portfolio review.

 Each paper should ask students to respond to some reading and make a contribution to its conversation beyond simple agreement or disagreement.  Instructors should design activities to facilitate reading comprehension and analysis: pre- reading, reading, and post-reading should all be addressed  This allows students to practice critical analysis and response

 Students who advance to the portfolio review must submit their work in a letter-size manila folder with the rubric/scoring sheet stapled to the inside cover of the folder.  Each portfolio must include the following documents:

 Two out-of-class essays, free of grades or comments. At least one essay must include previous drafts, indicating revising and editing skills. The essays must demonstrate the ability to support a thesis and to write analytically. At least one essay must respond to another text beyond summary, paraphrase, or direct quotation. In other words, the essay must engage with the text critically: for example, by applying its ideas in another context or assessing the validity of its argument.  A reasonable guideline for essay length is 1000 to 1500 words. Shorter essays may suggest a lack of development. However, no portfolio should be assessed solely on the basis of essay length.

 One in-class essay, written in a block of time appropriate to the course’s length and given in the last week or two of instruction. (Instructors in the same portfolio group should discuss any variations in the time they allot for students to write.) A short reading may be given to students a week before the day of the in-class writing, and the class may discuss the reading. The writing prompt, however, must not be given to students ahead of time. Given these constraints, the prompt should not attempt to elicit in-depth analysis; instead, it should elicit writing that demonstrates comprehension of the reading as well as some analysis and support for a point of view. (Portfolio groups may use a common reading and prompt, if all members wish to.) The in-class essay should be placed in the portfolio without grades or instructor comments.

 A letter of 350 – 500 words introducing the student and the portfolio contents. Students should explain convincingly how the essays in their portfolio demonstrate that they are ready for Composition 100. Within these general guidelines, specific directions for the letter may be determined by each instructor. Many instructors ask students to explain their take on “good writing” after taking English 1E.

 Portfolio reading groups allow faculty to collaborate with each other, establish a support system, develop collegiality and professionalism, and assist in assessing our students.  Faculty are placed in groups of three or four at the beginning of the semester. One faculty member is assigned the role of “table leader.” Table leaders serve as the point person for the group and organize any meetings during the semester as well as the portfolio reading during the week before finals week.

 While table leaders are encouraged to mentor newer faculty, they are not responsible for monitoring their colleagues’ pedagogical processes. Faculty should consult Sarah Arroyo if they experience problems collaborating with their colleagues.  Groups may collaborate on a number of levels: meeting on line or in person several times and designing common assignments, prompts, etc.; meeting one or two times throughout the semester and sharing assignments and ideas while possibly designing a common prompt or assignment; meeting online throughout the semester and not having any common materials; etc. Groups should communicate their desired level of collaboration early in the semester.

 Groups must meet in person to assess portfolios the week before finals week. Each faculty member must fill out a portfolio rating sheet and return in to Arroyo after the reading is complete. Arroyo will send an e-copy of the rating sheet before the readings occur.  Groups should make every effort to demonstrate collegiality during the readings. Please try to avoid overt criticism of a colleague’s assignments by meeting early in the semester to see if each assignment meets the course goals and objectives.

 Updated (Fall 2011) Google Doc link to Writing Skills 1 rubric:  E5U6ihaADUjHlcIQyYiC1tb8iPw3CYRn_aGfiI /edit?hl=en_US E5U6ihaADUjHlcIQyYiC1tb8iPw3CYRn_aGfiI /edit?hl=en_US