1. William B. Lalicker, Ph.D.Conference on College Composition and Communication Professor of English2014 Annual Convention West Chester UniversityIndianapolis, Indiana wlalicker@wcupa.eduwlalicker@wcupa.eduMarch 21, 2014

2. “Growing numbers of U.S. teachers and scholars of writing recognize that traditional ways of understanding and responding to language differences are inadequate to facts on the ground….We call for a new paradigm: a translingual approach….Advancing a translingual approach requires changes to writing programs in the design of writing curricula…faculty development….[g]raduate programs…”(Horner et al. 307, 309). This statement was signed by about 50 composition scholars from about 25 U.S. colleges and universities.

3. Assessments “have profound effects on public policy and educational funding” and “are a powerful definition of curriculum.…we cannot leave these matters to others” (White 307). “What I want to call into question is why the issue of language difference has not become a central concern for everyone who is involved in composition instruction, research, assessment, and administration. I argue that the lack of a ‘profession-wide response’ (Valdes 128)…stems from…the myth of linguistic homogeneity” (Matsuda 638).

4. Assessment drives the curriculum, delineates our values, and defines what we recognize as the real conditions of writing and writers. Program assessment that ignores translingulism revalorizes the myth of linguistic homogeneity. Program assessment that incorporates a translingual standard recognizes real conditions, respects “students’ right to their own language” (NCTE), and accesses the translingual future.

5. Program Strength Quotient (PSQ) is a numerical score, based on a self-survey, reflecting program policies and practices. Its survey questions help to identify writing-supportive structures responsible for good outcomes. Such a number provides a clear way to celebrate program strength and to compare a program to peer institutions. More importantly, it provides, as a comprehensive analytic tool, a way to set standards; to identify goals for improving each of a program’s components; to demonstrate program needs relative to a flexible but universalizable metric; and to prove program progress from year to year. PSQ measures the program’s status quo but creates the impetus for future improvement.

6. Standard I: the Basic Writing program…………………….…......................___out of 10 Standard II: English as a Second Language, global Englishes, intercultural rhetorics…………………………………………………………………__out of 5 Standard III: composition program staffing policies…………………..……___out of 10 Standard IV: composition program assessment…………….………………___out of 10 Standard V: Writing Across the Curriculum, Writing in the Disciplines………___out of 7 Standard VI: community engagement…………………………….……….…___out of 8 Standard VII: advanced, technical, business, digital writing and rhetoric…. ___out of 5 Standard VIII: scholarly engagement with writing and rhetoric……………___out of 10 Standard IX: majors, minors, and graduate offerings in writing and rhetoric___out of 5 Standard X: disciplinary equity………………….……………………………___out of 10 Standard XI: the Writing Center…………….………………………………..___out of 10 Standard XII: faculty development…………………………………………..___out of 10 STANDARDS ARE ASSESSED VIA ANSWERS TO SURVEY QUESTIONS. EACH QUESTION HAS A POINT VALUE. Note: Translingualism should be integrated into all of the Standards, though Standard II provides explicit recognition of its value in program assessment and the achievement of the PSQ.

7. If no, assign 0 points. If yes, assign 1 point. If the ESL courses and those who teach and administer them coordinate closely with the Basic Writing and/or general education Composition Program faculty and administration to help ESL students transition smoothly into English writing courses, assign 2 points. Allocation for this question (maximum 2 points)_____ My program: 1 point. We have ESL courses in a program completely separate from other writing programs: a challenge to solve through new program initiatives.

8. If no, assign 0 points. If yes, assign 1 point. Allocation for this question (maximum 1 point)_____ My program: 1 point. We offer a Multicultural Writing course that touches on global Englishes and is sometimes taught abroad, and that includes L2 students native to the study abroad site; we have a segment on global Englishes in our Business & Organizational Writing course.

9. If no, assign 0 points. If yes, assign 1 point. Allocation for this question (maximum 1 point)_____ My program: 1 point. We offer the abovementioned Multicultural Writing course and Business & Organizational Writing courses that include intercultural rhetoric. In addition, our Basic Writing and general education composition sequence specifically include objectives that address diversity, including the intersection of diversity and language; diversity in rhetoric is a key issue in our regularly conducted outcomes assessment of the courses.

10. If no, assign 0 points. If yes, assign 1 point. Allocation for this question (maximum 1 point)_____ My program: 1 point. We do faculty development workshops that address translingualism-related issues, and last year an ESL specialist conducted special workshops for Writing Center consultants. However, I don’t think the understanding of translingualism is universal and consistent, and believe that more faculty development must be done.

11. Program assessment incorporating translingualism as a standard: BUILDS A STRONG WRITING PROGRAM ACCESSES THE MULTIDISCURSIVE FUTURE FOR ALL STUDENTS

12. William B. LalickerCCCC 2014 West Chester UniversityIndianapolis, IN wlalicker@wcupa.eduwlalicker@wcupa.eduMarch 21, 2014

13. Bawarshi, Anis. “RESPONSE: Taking Up Language Differences in Composition.” College English 68.6 (2006): 652-56. Print. Horner, Bruce, and Min-Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Jones Royster, and John Trimbur. “OPINION: Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” College English 73.3 (2011): 303-21. Print. Matsuda, Paul Kei. “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition.” College English 68.6 (2006): 637-51. Print. NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English). “Resolution on the Students’ Rights to Their Own Language.” ncte.org. National Council of Teachers of English, 1974. Web. 8 March 2014. Valdes, Guadalupe. “Bilingual Minorities and Language Issues in Writing: Toward Professionwide Responses to a New Challenge.” Written Communication 9.1 (1992): 85-138. Qtd. in Matsuda. White, Edward M. “The Opening of the Modern Era of Writing Assessment: A Narrative.” College English 63.3 (2001): 306-20. Print.