Many thanks, Doug! Excellent to hear that you're experimenting with variations of large, and with possibilities of online, not to mention hopes for inquiry. I look forward to reading your article. Thanks also to others for the various offline messages I have received today. I will summarize them in a few days for the list. There is certainly more to business communications in Canada than skills/drills. The range and depth I'm seeing give me hope that I can get the Commerce people here to slow down a bit and consider their options. == Margaret Doug Brent wrote: > Hi Margaret, > > I'll reply on-list because others may be interested in this. > > COMS363 is a course for second year and above (U of C numbering starts > at 200 for reasons no-one has ever been able to explain to me). It's > positioned there largely because we didn't want to have to step into > the huge swirling FYC vacuum that the English department left when > they got out of this game. > > The course is mandatory for all Business and Engineering students and > heavily pressed on students in Computer Science, Geography, and > several other programs. Some of our own Communications Studies > students even take it! As a result it serves about 1400 students a > year, so the sheer weight of numbers tends to take centre stage, > although we do manage to squeeze in some discussions about curriculum > and such from time to time. > > When the Haskayne School of Business asked us to take it on, they were > in a position where three full-time people who had looked after their > in-house communications course were retiring or otherwise moving on. > They moved some funding to us in order to add their students to the > previous mix heavily dominated by Engineering. As flattering as it > was to be considered the experts in this, of course the money and the > work never quite match up. But you've all heard this one before. > > First of my two cents: running a course like this as a huge > megasection with tutorials sort of works but it's iffy. Successive > teams of instructors (Tania and Doug Hare, Helen Holmes and Doug Hare, > myself and Andrea Williams) were unable to make the subject of writing > exciting enough to rapture an audience of 300, who therefore simply > did not come. Smaller sections, on the other hand, seem to work even > though the curriculum gets more scattered. > > Second cent: we are piloting an on-line version of the course on the > assumption that electronic text might actually be the ideal medium for > a writing course. To do this we have had to give up the oral > component, which we are not happy about, but are trying to keep a > collaborative component, utilizing the strength of the > multidisciplinary audience. Early anecdotal reports are positive but > we have not tried to ramp it up past the pilot stage yet. Jo-Anne > Andre is spearheading this. > > A third cent, though I was only asked for two: one of the features of > the megasection experiment which Tania spearheaded and which we have > been trying to hold onto is a Boyer-inspired emphasis on inquiry-based > research rather than writing fundamentals AKA correctness. This is a > hard message to get across to legions of sessional instructors, and > one of the advantages of the megasection was having a full time > rhetorician in charge who could keep at this message, but we think > we've held onto a fragment of it. > > I will send you off-list a draft of an article that outlines this > research-oriented philosophy. I'd be glad to send it to anyone else > interested as well. > > Cheers, > > Doug > > Margaret Procter wrote: > >> Hi, Tania and Doug: >> >> I was hoping you would respond. I'd be glad to hear more about Coms >> 363 if you think it should be a model for our Commerce >> students--especially why it's a third-year course if I've understood >> that numbering correctly. I note, by the way, that Professor B. >> Curtis Eaton of your Faculty of Social Sciences was one of the >> reviewers who was so scathing about the U of T program. >> >> Thanks, >> Margaret. >> >> >> Tania S. Smith wrote: >> >>> Hi Margaret. I thought I'd reply to you briefly and see if Doug >>> Brent (cc'd) wants to add his 2 cents in regard to the U of C >>> experience with Business Communication. I am not sure how much to >>> say because some info might be sensitive, and I have not been >>> involved with the communication course since the end of 2003. >>> >>> Prior to Fall 2003, our Haskayne School of Business had its own >>> communications courses. For various reasons the Business faculty >>> was unsatisfied with this arrangement. So they redirected the >>> resources back through the central university budget to our Faculty >>> of Communication and Culture, and we became responsible for serving >>> Business students' communication education (in addition to >>> Engineering students) through Coms 363: Professional and Technical >>> Communication. >>> >>> Tania >>> >>> >>> >>> Margaret Procter wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Colleagues (with apologies for cross-posting): >>>> >>>> I have just been asked for advice on designing writing and >>>> communication >>>> instruction for the undergraduate Commerce program here at U of T, >>>> and I >>>> need your help. Students in that faculty can take Arts and Science >>>> courses and use the college writing centres, but there is very little >>>> instruction on writing within their own program. An external review >>>> last >>>> summer (see >>>> http://www.utoronto.ca/commerce/pdf/CP_External_Review_2006.pdf) >>>> suggested strongly that Commerce include such instruction, >>>> especially on >>>> the types of writing done in the business professions. >>>> >>>> So now the administrators in Commerce are starting to consider >>>> curriculum options, with a special emphasis on first year. My first >>>> suggestion was to look at the innovative first-year course in our own >>>> Engineering program -- a course on Engineering Design co-taught by >>>> people from various Engineering departments and from the Engineering >>>> Communication Program (see >>>> http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~apsesp/espintro.htm). I have already >>>> had my >>>> say about the ideas of having a post-entry writing test and of having >>>> student work double-marked, once for content and once for writing >>>> (meaning language correctness). I have mentioned the Boyer Commission >>>> emphasis on integrating writing instruction within courses and >>>> noted the >>>> prevalence of WAC or WID programs in other faculties here and in other >>>> universities. >>>> >>>> Now I have been asked to outline ways that writing instruction is >>>> included in other undergraduate business programs across Canada. Any >>>> program in Commerce here would be starting from scratch, and the >>>> external review has motivated the Commerce faculty to invest resources >>>> and program time in an effective system. Please send me news and ideas >>>> -- offlist if you wish, and I will compile a summary and distribute >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Margaret. >>>> >>> >> > -- Margaret Procter, Ph.D. University of Toronto Coordinator, Writing Support 15 King's College Circle, Toronto ON M5S 3H7 416 978-8109; FAX 416 971-2027 [log in to unmask] http://www.utoronto.ca/writing -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties, write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask] For the list archives and information about the organization, its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-