Mod4 Discussion Constructive_Feedback

S w

W11157 TRACY CHAN: "WE NEED TO TALK"

Paul Bigus wrote this case under the supervision of Jana Seijts solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmission without its written permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail [email protected]. Copyright © 2011, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2011-06-09

INTRODUCTION It was Friday, March 20, 2009, at 5:30 p.m., and Tracy Chan, managing director of the Student Learning and Writing Services, at St. Charles University in Calgary, Alberta, sat staring at her computer screen. The email on the screen was from her newest instructor, Michael Hinske. After reading the email, Chan sighed at the realization that she would need to plan for a difficult conversation with Hinske. TRACY CHAN Chan had a long history of working in student services and teaching at the university level. After completing her master’s degree in education 15 years earlier, she started her career as a part-time lecturer at the University of Southern Manitoba, in the Faculty of Education and Arts, teaching both Teaching Methods and Introduction to University. Chan had worked for St. Charles University for a total of nine years: two years as the university’s English language support coordinator and seven years as the managing director of Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS). Chan had a staff of two regular full-time counselors and more than 10 part-time instructors. She prided herself that she had created a strong sense of team within the group. THE STUDENT LEARNING AND WRITING SERVICES The SLWS unit was part of the Learning Commons; however, the SLWS was not funded using student fees, but rather the budget for the unit fell under the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) office. The Commons was charged with providing learning and academic writing support to both undergraduate and graduate students. Each year, Chan worked to increase the unit’s visibility on campus. In the seven years she had been in the position of director, she had increased the number of students using the program’s services from 6,800 to more than 14,000. These impressive numbers continued to garner praise for Chan from not only her department’s senior administrator but also from the vice-provost (VP) office.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 2 9B11C017

Over the last six years, from 2003 to 2009, the university’s strategic plan had called for both the internationalization of the university and an increase in the number of graduate students to be recruited to St. Charles. As such, the SLWS had been instructed by the VP, Dr. Henrietta Roman, to fulfill the strategic plan by increasing program offerings to both English-language learners (ELL) and graduate students. However, despite having introduced the strategic plan, the university had done little to provide the funds needed to offer the valued programming and to fulfill the university’s goals. In fact, from 2006 to 2008, the university had reduced Chan’s unit budget by 3 per cent each year. Because of the unit’s steady increase in clientele, the staff members, including Chan herself, were beginning to feel the strains as a result of being understaffed. At the SLWS staff retreat in July of 2007, team members had voiced their concerns regarding the increase in clientele. Each instructor had seen a marked increase in the number of individual students he or she saw each day during the previous year. It was also evident that the department’s push to encourage graduate students to use the SLWS services had proven to be very successful. In the 2006/07 academic year, enrolment of graduate students in the SLWS programs had risen 43 per cent over the previous year. On top of this increase, the unit had seen a 22 per cent increase in undergraduate usage over the previous year. Despite the increase in clientele, the unit as a whole was operating with four fewer part-time staff members than it had in 2002/03, the year Chan had taken over the unit. THE GRADUATE WRITING PROGRAM (TGWP) Chan herself had seen her workload increase. Not only was she counseling individual students but she was also being asked by the VP’s office to engage in more university-wide committee work and to conduct research projects for the university administration in the area of language proficiency and admission requirements. Furthermore, because Chan was the head of the unit and had the most academic qualifications, she was responsible for offering the majority of the non-credit workshops and seminars the SLWS offered to students. Because of the university’s push to increase graduate student enrolment, the SLWS was asked to also offer more workshops geared to graduate students and, in particular, to international graduate students. Much like her staff, Chan began to feel like she was burning the candle at both ends. The growing list of high-profile workshops, the increase in clients and the growing discontent of her existing staff members led Chan to request emergency financial support from the VP’s office to fund an additional staff member who would be responsible for developing the unit’s new graduate workshop. This new graduate writing instructor would not only be designing and implementing workshops but would also be responsible for creating teaching materials, including PowerPoint presentations, learning activities and information handouts. The new graduate writing instructor would also be responsible for advertising the program and liaising with faculty members across the various disciplines to educate them on the SLWS graduate writing initiatives. Chan completed a funding request form at the direction of Dr. Roman in November of 2007 (see Exhibit 1). Dr. Roman had stated that emergency funding was to be available to units and that the SLWS was an excellent candidate for the additional funds, given the increase in student usage and the fact that the staff complement was far below what was needed to adequately provide for service growth.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 3 9B11C017

THE FACULTY EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE In November of 2007, the university student support units were in a period of restructuring. The Student Affairs Department, of which the SLWS was a unit, was now under the direct control of the university’s VP. At the time, other units were also amalgamated under the VP’s portfolio. Nicole Duncan, the associate director of the Faculty Educational Development Office (FEDO), a unit dedicated to the professional development of the university faculty members and graduate students, was also assigned under this portfolio. In order to increase the FEDO’s presence on campus, Duncan knew it was important to lobby the VP to fund the programs and services offered under the FEDO mandate. To make a more compelling case for funding for her unit, Duncan convinced the VP that more collaboration between units would enable greater development of services and sharing of resources. The VP agreed that units must now collaborate and offer services together to reach the greatest proportion of the student population. The VP’s office, in conjunction with the FEDO, decided that the funding request made by Chan would be resubmitted under Duncan’s name. In effect, if successful, the intention was that the FEDO would receive funding for the graduate writing support services of the SLWS. In turn, the SLWS would receive a staff member to head the initiative, but the funding and supervision of all funds intended for the graduate writing instructor position would be handled by Duncan and not Chan. In April of 2008, the university administration granted the funding application to the FEDO for Chan’s program. On May 16, 2008, Dr. Denis Dixon, the director of the FEDO, called Chan and her director, Dr. Jill McAdams, to a meeting. At this meeting, both Chan and Dr. McAdams learned of the changes to the initial funding request and that the funds had been given to the FEDO to direct Chan’s graduate writing program. Moreover, unlike in the past, when Chan had been allowed to hire her own staff members, for this appointment, Duncan wanted to have a direct role in the recruiting and hiring of the new graduate writing instructor because she was to be responsible for the overseeing of the budget for the initiative. In early June of 2008, résumés started to come into the university’s human resources (HR) department. HR sent Chan 13 application packets to review and to narrow the search to an interview list. On June 12, 2008, Duncan called Chan to inform her that a résumé from Michael Hinske had been sent directly to her and that it should be included in the pile of potential candidates. Chan indicated to Duncan that this résumé should have gone through the same HR process as the other résumés; however, Duncan had already personally spoken to Hinske and told her to disregard the usual policy and to include the Hinske because his qualifications seemed to be on par with what they were looking for in a graduate writing instructor. THE CANDIDATES On June 24, 2008, the interviews began with six candidates making the final selection. While all the candidates looked excellent on paper, a concern was that five of the candidates had not taught a writing course or had not received any training in or were not familiarity with basic composition theory. When Chan had worked with the HR department on the draft of the job requirements, she was adamant that the winning candidate would be a senior member of her staff, with experience teaching university-level writing. The candidate had to be able to communicate with faculty members about best practices in writing at the university level. Moreover, Chan worried the only one of the candidates, Patrick Keller, was familiar with the counseling of students. Keller was a former staff member and was not only familiar with the theory behind the SLWS but also had a substantial level of experience working in writing centers throughout the province.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 4 9B11C017

All candidates were asked to prepare and teach a topic on graduate writing to the interview panel, which comprised Chan, Duncan and Peter Lewis, the assistant coordinator of the SLWS. After the teaching session, a formal interview took place. Keller’s teaching session had not gone well. He was nervous and did not use visual aids during his presentation; however, Chan had not mentioned to any of the candidates that PowerPoint would be available during the interview. Keller also did not dress for a formal interview, instead opting for a shirt with jeans, a point that had not gone unnoticed by Duncan during the interview debrief. Hinske, on the other hand, did have a presentation that included a PowerPoint slide deck. He also dressed in a conservative suit and was neatly groomed. When it came time for the interview itself, Hinske, a trained teacher, caused Chan and Lewis to worry. When asked “if a job in the school system became available and was offered to you, would you stay here at the university or would you take the teaching job?” Hinske indicated that he would take the teaching job. This possibility was a great concern to Chan and Lewis as they had hoped that the candidate hired would be committed to the position for at least the duration of the two-year contract. Moreover, after reviewing Hinske’s initial application package, both Chan and Lewis found numerous typos, further heightening their apprehension about the appropriateness of Hinske’s candidacy for the position. During the final interview debrief, Duncan stated that the best candidate for the position was Hinske. Chan expressed, in as strong terms as possible, her hesitation with the candidate. She indicated that the position they were hiring for was a senior position and that if Hinske was the successful candidate, it was important to recognize that he was “a) new to the workforce having never held a job before, and b) unfamiliar with the tasks needed to be in such a position.” Hinske lacked any formal training in writing and was unfamiliar with other genres and disciplines of writing at the university level. These were important reservations that would have implications for the SLWS. However, Duncan stated that she wanted the job filled before she went on vacation in August and, since Hinske seemed like the best candidate, he should be given the job. It was agreed that Hinske would be hired to work four days per week for the SLWS and one day per week for Duncan in the FEDO. MICHAEL HINSKE On September 1, 2008, Michael Hinske started in his new position. Chan met him at 9 a.m. and introduced him to the other members of the staff. Chan also needed to go over the job requirements with Hinske so that in short order he could begin to work independently on his mandate for the academic year (September to April), to create a series of writing workshops for graduate students. One of the first challenges for managing Hinske was the fact that the university was experiencing a space shortage. The university had fewer offices than staff members. As a result, Chan was forced be creative. She suggested that Hinske take the desk in the corner of the writing center. Although the space did not allow for privacy, it did have a spacious desk, a computer with Internet access and storage space. The major drawback, however, was that Hinske would have to work in a busy room that was set up for tutors to conduct their tutoring sessions with students. The other option, which would allow Hinske a quiet place to work, was a vacant office in the university library, a three-minute walk from the main SLWS office area. Moreover, because Hinske would be working one day a week in Duncan’s area, that location would be convenient for him to work between the two units. Hinske opted to take the office in the library. THE PROBLEMS BEGIN At the start of September 2008, Chan was asked by the university administration to work on a new project. Her task was to help create a new website that would house all of the university programs engaged in

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 5 9B11C017

student learning supports, such as writing and learning resources. In addition to her other responsibilities, Chan needed to commit more of her time into this project. She decided to call a meeting with Lewis, Hinske and herself to outline her new task and to ensure that everyone knew what he or she was responsible for working on. She provided Hinske with a copy of the Graduate Writing Program Proposal, his job description and the funding request documents, which outlined all of the responsibilities his new position was to be engaged in (see Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4). She also gave him a faculty contact list with the names of the faculty members with whom she had already developed a relationship. Both Lewis and Chan reviewed the documents with Hinske to ensure he understood the task he was taking on. Hinske asked a few questions about the learning objectives of the program, but otherwise he did not seem concerned about the job tasks. Chan asked him whether he needed anything further from either Lewis or herself. Hinske responded by asking for copies of the presentations and curriculum support materials because he felt he could build on what they had already created. Lewis hesitated and looked at Chan. According to unit policy, new members created their own materials. Because Lewis and Chan were developing a book on the topic, they were hesitant to share their materials with Hinske, as much of the material would end up in the book. Moreover, Lewis expressed his concern over academic ownership. Chan pointed out to Hinske that at the end of the year the graduate writing instructor was responsible for developing the unit’s presentations that could be shared with other members of the staff so that they had a common body of material from which to develop presentations. Moreover, for each presentation, he needed to design activities and handouts that would be used in the SLWS by other instructors in future presentations. This responsibility had been clearly outlined in both the job description and the job proposal. Hinske rolled his eyes and let out a sigh; he was visibly upset about having to start the project from scratch. Chan reminded Hinske that he was filling a senior position, which assumed he had the skills and background needed to complete the job as it was designed. She also provided him with a series of books that focused on the graduate student experience and writing theory. Chan was concerned that Hinske’s request for teaching materials underlined his inexperience in the position. Moreover, his reaction was of greater concern to Chan. She asked Hinske to stop by the area regularly to touch base and to let her know whether he had any questions or concerns. Lewis also stated at the end of the meeting that he too was available to Hinske should he need anything or if he wanted to run ideas by him about various topics or workshops. Over the next two months, Chan followed Hinske’s progress weekly. She made it a point of meeting Hinske before he started his weekly tutoring sessions. She asked Hinske what successes he had and where he needed help. During these informal meetings, Hinske had seemed distant, responding to Chan with only curt answers and never volunteering information unless Chan asked for it. Other staff members, in both the SLWS and the Learning Commons, made casual comments that Hinske did not talk to them except for the occasional “hello” and seemed particularly distant. Chan was becoming increasingly concerned about her newest staff member. Moreover, Chan was troubled with the amount of time she was spending supervising Hinske’s progress on the job. She had hoped that whoever had obtained the position could work independently with little supervision, thus allowing her more time to commit to both her teaching and administrative committee work. Hinske’s inexperience in workplace settings was clearly starting to take its toll. In mid-October 2008, Chan was beginning to become frustrated with her casual meetings with Hinske. As a result, Chan sat down with Hinske and asked him how he felt about the job and the unit. He said, “Things are fine.” Chan decided that now was a good time to talk about her expectations regarding interacting with other staff and the importance of developing good working relationships with the people in the Learning

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 6 9B11C017

Commons. She also spoke of the importance of his volunteering information about his performance in the job, especially given the fact that Hinske’s office was in another building. As Hinske was new to the labor market and was unfamiliar with the development of work relationships, Chan felt she had an obligation to teach Hinske about this basic employment skill. To help him trumpet his successes and develop problem- solving skills, Chan and Hinske discussed the merits of his keeping a weekly work log. Here, Hinske could write about the workshops he had given, students he had worked with and any challenges he faced during the week. Hinske agreed to do the logs and stated that since he had trouble talking to people face-to-face, especially his supervisors, this tool would be useful for him. Hinske began to write the weekly work log, which he sent to Chan via email. Meetings were then set up when issues arose. Toward the end of November 2008, Chan received an email from Hinske indicating that he was finished the workshop series and that “things were slow” for him at the moment. He asked Chan if she could give him a list of things that needed to be done. Chan stared in disbelief at the email. Hinske had a copy of both the job description and the proposal; therefore, he already possessed a “list” of things that needed to be completed within the first year of the position. Chan was angry. She emailed back, expressing surprise that Hinske was asking her for this information, given that he was “in a senior position and expected to have the wherewithal to know what tasks he should engage in.” She further stated that he needed to “look over his job description and proposal carefully and see if he could solve the situation himself.” Hinske continued to write weekly reports for Chan, and they met occasionally to discuss the position. However, Hinske had not improved his communication skills during their meetings. He continued to provide short answers, roll his eyes and look with contempt at having to report to Chan. On November 28, Chan asked Lewis to sit in on a meeting to observe Hinske’s behavior. Toward the end of the meeting, Chan made a comment about her plans for the weekend. Hinske seemed confused by her comment and asked her what she meant. Chan restated the comment and innocently apologized for not being clear, to which Hinske flippantly commented, “Yeah, you’d figure a communication specialist would know how to communicate.” Chan was taken aback by the comment, but chose not to confront Hinske. After the November 28 meeting, Lewis commented that he felt that Hinske was not happy having to work with Chan and that he had treated her with disrespect. Chan suggested that to help Hinske be successful in the position perhaps weekly supervision of Hinske should be taken over by Lewis. It was hoped that Hinske would feel more comfortable with Lewis and would perhaps open up more about his progress and develop closer ties to the unit as a whole. Lewis left the room by saying, “Don’t expect things with Hinske to be any better with me — since he rarely talks to me either.” During their first meeting, Lewis had a frank discussion with Hinske and stated that he had to learn to be more communicative with the other staff members and, more importantly, with Chan, given that she was his supervisor. Hinske admitted that he had trouble interacting with people individually. He felt more comfortable talking to people in groups. Lewis told Hinske that the culture of the unit had always been that people worked together for the greater good of the clients. Hinske sent an email to Chan apologizing for his inattentiveness during meetings and explained his discomfort with working face-to-face with her and that he would work on his problem in the coming weeks. Chan felt the email represented a breakthrough with Hinske, but only time would tell. To investigate further, Lewis had lunch with Duncan to see how Hinske was working out in the FEDO. Duncan had glowing praise about Hinske and indicated that he had become a valued member of their team. Lewis quipped, “That’s funny, he has not worked out as well for us.” Duncan became defensive and said that Hinske had been highly recommended and had lived up to all her expectations. Lewis pointed out that “maybe it had to do more with Hinske knowing that the FEDO funded the position.”

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 7 9B11C017

SMOKE AND MIRRORS On March 17, 2009, toward the end of the academic year, Chan was checking in with Hinske to remind him of the deliverables that were due on April 30. To help Hinske amass the documents required, Chan asked him to start by sending her a revised list of the faculty members he had contacted about the program over the course of the year since September. At the end of the week, Hinske emailed her his updated faculty list. As Chan stared at the list, she noticed that the bulk of the contacts were contacts that she or other members of the unit had initiated. In fact, a cursory look at the list showed that little work had been done by Hinske to contact faculty members, except for members in the Faculty of Science (the faculty where Hinske got his master’s degree). There was no indication that Hinske had made any attempt to discuss the program with other faculties on campus. Chan knew that she had to confront Hinske about this omission, but first she needed a plan of action.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 8 9B11C017

Exhibit 1

GRADUATE WRITING PROGRAM PROPOSAL

The Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) is committed to providing a comprehensive range of writing support that ensures both the academic success and retention of graduate students at St. Charles University. To that end, the SLWS has created a collection of services geared to assisting graduate students through the different stages of their advanced education:

a) New graduate students learning about their new role as graduate writers. b) New and returning graduate students seeking writing support through their course work. c) Graduate students who have completed their course work and are in the process of writing their

advanced papers.

Services currently offered include orientation to SLWS services, SLWS outreach presentations, in-house presentations, faculty and department sponsored graduate writing seminars and writing workshops, online services including online writing labs, online handouts and bi-weekly email outs, and individual appointments with students in the Writing Services. Over the next few years the SLWS plans to implement a program of comprehensive writing supports for graduate students entitled the SLWS Graduate Writing Program (GWP) Initiative.

TENTATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE GRADUATE WRITING PROGRAM

Services for New Graduate Students:

 Graduate orientation workshops to introduce writing at the graduate level to in-coming students. Services for New and Returning Graduate Students:

 Creation of online resources to include topics of interest to graduate students.  Increase one-on-one writing counseling service delivery to graduate students.  Work in cooperation with Student Learning Skills Development Unit (SLSDU) to create a separate

section on the GradUpDate email out.  Design writing workshops specifically for graduate students in collaboration with faculties and

departments.  Develop podcasts on issues related to graduate-level writing.

Services for Students Completing Their Graduate Studies:

 Creation of a writing group for students working on their thesis/dissertation. The proposed initiative is vital for continuing to provide an exceptional student experience for graduate students at St. Charles University. The initiative is grounded in the belief that writing is a developmental process and provides students with writing instruction tailored to their developmental stage in the graduate student experience. Moreover, this initiative will help St. Charles University stay competitive with services already offered at other major Canadian universities.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 9 9B11C017

Exhibit 1 (continued) GRADUATE WRITING PROGRAM To continue to provide the best student experience for graduate students, the SLWS plans to expand current services and promote these as a comprehensive writing initiative entitled GWP. Rationale: The writing support services provided to students through GWP will offer concrete strategies and targets for strengthening grad-level writing across the disciplines. In addition, faculty and departmental input for service design and delivery will ensure that graduate students receive proper writing training based on disciplinary needs. Outcome Goals: Overall the program is designed to help students become better graduate students. Moreover, it is intended to help in student retention and completion of their terminal documents (i.e. thesis or dissertation). Learning Objectives: Through this program students will have an opportunity to learn and develop skills geared to their placement in their graduate programs.

New Students (first year): Basic comprehension of graduate-level academic standards; graduate- level research and writing skills; writing book reviews.

New and Returning Students (first to third year): Thesis/dissertation writing skills; effective grant proposal writing and application; writing for publication; poster presentation skills; writing book reviews.

Graduate Students Completing Their Degrees (fourth year and above): Thesis/dissertation writing skills; completing the thesis/dissertation; effective time management strategies; self-editing and proofreading; understanding intellectual property and copyright; writing for publication.

Methodology: The program’s main learning tools will include one-time workshops, extended workshops, one-on-one tutoring, print resources, online resources including podcasts and writing-specific handouts, and a thesis/dissertation support group. Assessment of Program Outcomes: Over the next two years, the program will be assessed using the following methods: Year One:

 Entry questionnaires from students in their first year.  Exit survey of graduate students in their final year.  Evaluations of one-time workshops.  Number of students using the tutoring service and number of repeat clients.  Pre and post testing for longer workshops.  Surveys with professors, faculties, and departments.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 10 9B11C017

Exhibit 1 (continued) Year Two:

 Survey or interview with students (randomly chosen) to evaluate the degree to which the program is meeting its learning goals.

 Surveys with professors, faculties, and departments.

TENTATIVE GRADUATE WRITING PROGRAM Services for New Graduate Students: Create workshops for new students: Sample topics below Introduction to Graduate Writing in the Arts, Introduction to Graduate Writing in the Sciences, Expectations in Academic Assessment, Writing Book Reviews. Services for New and Returning Graduate Students:

 Design workshops specifically for writing at the graduate level: Sample topics below

Crafting a Thesis or Dissertation, Research Writing, Abstract Writing, Literature Review, Strengthening Claims, Using Sources, Designing Effective Poster Presentations, Writing a Journal Article Summary, Avoiding ABD Syndrome, Writing a Qualifying Research Paper, Writing Concisely.

 Increase the availability of current online resources to include topics of interest to graduate students (topics mirror workshops).

 Increase one-on-one writing counseling service delivery to graduate students.  Work in cooperation with SLSDU to create a separate section focused on writing in GradUpDate

– a biweekly information email out.  Post podcasts on graduate writing issues on St. Charles library’s student services site and SLWS.  Expansion of our website to include more resources for graduate students involved in TA work

and teaching writing to undergraduates.

Services for Students Completing Their Graduate Studies:

 Create a writing group for students working on their thesis/dissertation modeled after The University of Toronto-Scarborough College Thesis/Dissertation Support Group.

 This GWP Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group model is outlined below in more detail. Faculty Outreach:

 Frequent meetings with department chairs allow information and ideas to be shared in the planning and implementation stages. Allows for survey of needs and wants of departments and faculties.

 The SLWS will also liaise with faculty, TAs, and students themselves and seek input with regards to needs and wants in the area of graduate writing.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 11 9B11C017

Exhibit 1 (continued) The GWP Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group will involve two types of support for graduate students: support in the actual writing of their research and support in the process of completing the writing and defense of their work. Topics for discussion in the writing groups will draw from two texts: Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day and The Student’s Guide to Preparing Dissertations and Theses 2nd edition, both of which provide helpful tips for discussion. Students will also be asked to share writing and comment on each other’s writing.

Texts: Joan Bolker, Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day. NY: Henry Holt, 1988. Brian Allison and Phil Race. The Student’s Guide to Preparing Dissertations and Theses. London: Routledge Falmer, 2004.

Writing-Focus Assistance:

 Drafts of chapters (or parts) circulated before the meetings.  One or two writers’ work discussed per meeting.  Oral and/or written feedback to the writer and some discussion.  High level of commitment required.  Provides incentive for writing.  Writers receive feedback from supportive readers.

Discussion Topics Will Include:

1. Getting Things in Order: Structuring the Thesis/Dissertation. 2. Moving Beyond Your Research. 3. The Nuts and Bolts of Academic Style: It’s a Question of Discipline. 4. Writing Concisely. 5. Developing and Refining Research Question(s) and Methodology. 6. Keeping Track of Your Research and Reading. 7. Writing and Data Presentation.

Writing Process-Focus Assistance:

 No reading outside meetings.  All members’ progress is discussed at each meeting.  Possibility of reading aloud one to two pages at meetings, for discussion.  Lower level of commitment required.  Offers discussion and support in the writing process, as well as in any other areas that seem

appropriate to the group—e.g. publications, and practical matters involved in writing their research.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 12 9B11C017

Exhibit 1 (continued) Discussion Topics for Support-focus Aide:

1. Setting Realistic Goals for the Writing Process Using:

S – Specific M – Measureable A – Attainable R – Realistic T – Tied to a date

2. Strategies for Dealing with Writer’s Block 3. Conducting Peer Reviews 4. Advice from Recent Graduates 5. Publishing 6. Defense Preparation

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 13 9B11C017

Exhibit 2

GRADUATE WRITING INSTRUCTOR JOB DESCRIPTION

STUDENT LEARNING AND WRITING SERVICES

ST. CHARLES UNIVERSITY

Qualifications:

 Education: Minimum Master’s degree in writing intensive discipline.

 Experience: Minimum three years’ experience teaching and/or tutoring formal writing skills; familiarity and experience working with graduate students; experience developing and implementing workshops on writing topics; experience working with website and other media tools for university student population; experience in survey data collection; experience in database management.

 Skills: Excellent communication skills; strong understanding of writing issues at the graduate

level; training in tutoring and class facilitation; supervisory and office management skills; knowledge of grant funding bodies and procedures; knowledge of university programs and procedures.

Duties and Responsibilities:

 Oversee the daily operations of the Graduate Writing Program (GWP):

- Prepare and deliver writing workshops for graduate students. - Perform one-on-one writing tutorials for graduate students. - Develop and maintain web-based services, including online tutorials and Podcasts. - Prepare handouts and other print resources.

 Collaborate with the Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) Program Coordinator in

design and implementation of GWP services.

 Liaise with various stakeholders, including representatives from the Faculty Educational Development Office (FEDO), Student Learning Skills Development Unit (SLSDU), Counseling Services, and graduate program Chairs and Faculty members.

 Record and assess program outcomes through a variety of data collection methods including

student response surveys and pre and post testing.

 Assist with special projects and initiatives as required.

Length of Contract: 2 years with 1 year renewable. Salary: $55,370

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 14 9B11C017

Exhibit 3

GRADUATE WRITING PROGRAM

Results of the 2005/06 University Provost Initiative Fund (UPIF) Award and UPIF Proposal for 2006/07

The Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) has been increasingly involved in providing International and English as a Second Language (ESL) students with high quality services geared towards helping these students make the transition to academic study at a Canadian university and to be more effective English language writers. Over 33% of the tutoring clientele and over 75% of students using our workshops and seminars identify themselves as either international students or ESL students. Moreover, in the last four years more departments and faculties have turned to the SLWS to provide services to help these students with their academic courses around the topics of writing and language. During the 2005-2006 academic year the SLWS received a $30,000 UPIF award. This award was put towards the hiring of a full-time permanent writing and ESL counselor to help deal with the increasing demand the SLWS has been experiencing for the past few years for one-on-one tutoring, seminars, and workshops. In addition to seeing a large percentage of undergraduate ESL and international student population using the SLWS tutoring service, this new staff member has been responsible for designing and implementing writing initiatives for both non-native and native English speakers. Most recently, at the request of the Faculty of Nursing, the staff member created a course manual on writing for nurses. This manual is now used as a series of modules on writing for Post-Registered Nursing (RN) students in the faculty. He has also been charged with the responsibility of administering the Summer Transition to Academic Writing Program which involves inviting the entire St. Charles first year class to a series of 3- day summer clinics. The staff member is responsible for designing and implementing the clinics curriculum and overseeing its assessment and evaluation. Finally, this person has the responsibility of designing and maintaining the SLWS website. As the university moves to increase the number of international graduate students through its internationalization initiative, the SLWS can expect to see an increased demand for its services. As such, during the 2006-2007 budget year, the SLWS is seeking funding to hire a full-time permanent staff member dedicated to providing one-on-one writing support for international graduate students. This hire will also develop in collaboration with faculties and departments, discipline and course specific writing workshops for the international Graduate students on topics including, but not limited to, Writing Your Thesis/Dissertation, Writing Abstracts, Writing Effective Literature Reviews, Designing Winning Grant Proposals, Completing Poster Presentations and Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Finally, this new staff member will help the program develop curriculum and support materials designed to help international graduates become better writers and therefore more effective academics. JOB DESCRIPTION: The SLWS needs an experienced and knowledgeable instructor to teach writing skills to graduate level international students. The successful candidate must have a broad and in-depth understanding of second language acquisition. Moreover, this candidate must possess excellent writing skills and substantial experience in teaching at the post-secondary level. The successful candidate should have an interest in and experience in teaching writing skills to include such duties as preparing course related materials, conceptualizing and writing lesson plans, and participating in classroom teaching.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 15 9B11C017

Exhibit 3 (continued) Job Summary Teach writing from developmental through graduate level to professional-technical students in a variety of graduate level programs. Assess student skill levels, monitor computer-based learning, and develop and implement classroom and individualized curriculum that serve students enrolled across a wide range of academic and professional-technical programs. Responsible for curriculum development, with special emphasis placed on the ability to foster the integration of academic and professional-technical writing at the graduate level. Essential Functions

1. Teach writing courses to students at a variety of skill levels and evaluate student progress toward the attainment of learning objectives.

2. Design instructional strategies, including small group, individualized, and computer-assisted instruction, and select and evaluate the materials needed to implement these strategies.

3. Assist in developing a writing curriculum that facilitates learning for Graduate level international students.

4. Support efforts to articulate writing topics pertinent to graduate students. 5. Collaborate with faculty members in the development of curriculum for graduate level

international students. 6. Work independently displaying problem-solving skills. 7. Identify and provide for individual learning needs of students and make appropriate individualized

programming. 8. Participate as an effective member of the SLWS instructional team. 9. Develop a professional development plan and participate in improvement activities. 10. Maintain appropriate records which indicate student progress. 11. Implement and manage yearly CanTEST for the SLWS. 12. Promote an understanding of the university’s mission. 13. Perform other duties as assigned. 14. Maintain regular attendance and punctuality.

Minimum Qualifications

1. Bachelor of Education with additional qualification of ESL. 2. A Master’s degree in related discipline. 3. Familiarity with writing sequence from the basic skills through Graduate level writing. 4. Excellent communication skills and the ability to function as an effective team member.

Preferred Qualifications

1. Recent teaching experience using a variety of methods, such as traditional classroom, individualized lab instruction, and collaborative group activities; experience working in writing centers preferred.

2. Experience teaching writing courses, including technical, professional and developmental writing. 3. Experience using technology in the classroom. 4. Experience in writing curriculum. 5. Evidence of recent professional development activity. 6. Experience with web site design and maintenance.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 16 9B11C017

Exhibit 4

ST. CHARLES UNIVERSITY PROVOST FUNDING REQUEST FOR A GRADUATE STUDENT LEARNING AND WRITING

COUNSELLOR

Budget Unit: Student Learning and Writing Service. Proposal Author: Tracy Chan Title of Proposal: The Graduate Student Writing Program Budget Request: Salary and cost of benefits for Graduate Student Learning and Writing Counselor (Salary Grade 16 = $49,000 × 3 years + benefit allowance 13% Total Requested $166,110.00)

Description/Summary of Proposal – Including Relationship to Operational Plan: As recognized in the Engaging the Future Document, “All Canadian universities are now competing for highly qualified graduate students. In order to attract the best students, we must offer programs and services for graduate students that are second to none in Canada.” The Graduate Student Writing Program, proposed by the Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) would make an important contribution to this outcome. In recent the SLWS have expanded services for graduate students in general and for international graduate students in particular. Through orientation activities; presentations and workshops; individual consultations; and online supports, both the breadth and depth of support for St. Charles University graduate students offered by these areas has increased significantly despite budgetary and space constraints. One of these constraints — space — will be lessened with the move to the new Student Services Building. The new space offers an excellent opportunity to expand services for graduate students and to develop “second to none” learning and writing support programs for St. Charles graduate students. This objective could best be realized with an increase to staffing levels. Currently the SLWS experience heavy demand for service from students in all years and programs; at existing staff levels the introduction of any new programs means that an existing service would be scaled back or eliminated. To maintain the heavily-used, highly-evaluated services provided by the SLWS to further strengthen services for graduate students, additional staff is needed. Any increase in staffing to the SLWS would contribute to the recruitment and retention of qualified graduate students; this request is for the addition to the SLWS of one full time equivalent staff person dedicated to the expansion of learning and writing programs for graduate students. With their years of expertise both developing and implementing programs for students, significant benefits and greater efficiencies would be derived with new staff being trained by, and working directly within the SLWS. The proposed Graduate Student Writing Program would achieve the following outcomes:

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.

Page 17 9B11C017

Exhibit 4 (continued)

 Create a Drop-in Help Centre for graduate students. At present, established and successful drop-in centers offered by the SLWS are heavily used by undergraduate students. The Graduate Student Help Centre would be open 10–20 hours/week and respond to graduate student issues such as time management and thesis writing.

 Develop and offer a greater number and variety of graduate learning and writing presentations. For example, workshops would be created to address (i) preparation for comprehensive exams, and (ii) thesis progress and completion. Individual appointments with graduate students this fall suggest that graduate students in general would benefit from much of the information presented in the SLWS’ Critical Reading Strategies for International Graduate Students and Writing for Graduate School; these workshops would be adapted to benefit a wider graduate student population.

 Enhance services offered online. This would include redesigning GradUpDate, the bi-weekly electronic newsletter created by SLWS which is now in its eighth year; creating online workshops; and implementing an on-line discussion forum that focuses on graduate student learning and writing issues.

 Increase availability of individual appointments for graduate students for both learning and writing skill development.

 Collaborate with other areas to respond to identified needs. For example, introduce a graduate support group conducted by staff from the SLWS, and Psychological Services that focuses on personal, learning, and writing issues to facilitate thesis progression. This would include discussions on organization and writing skills; managing the relationship with a thesis advisor; isolation/loneliness; stress management; and if relevant, English as a second language issues.

The Student Learning and Writing Services are well positioned to help St. Charles University be recognized as a national leader in providing an exceptional graduate student educational experience.

This document is authorized for use only in B405c - Workforce Perfomance Management by Dev Team from November 2012 to May 2018.