The problem As instructors at all levels and in all disciplines attempt to answer the nebulous question of how to define college-level writing, the heated discussion of how to assess it inundates books, journals, newspapers, web sites, and conferences. According to the scoring guide developed by experienced writing faculty from the California State University system in 1988 for a variety of testing programs, superior scores for all first-year college-level writing must address the research question fully and explore the issues thoughtfully; show substantial depth, fullness, and complexity of thought; demonstrate clear, focused, unified, and coherent organization; be fully developed and detailed; and evidence superior control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition with minor flaws. I would argue that most teachers of first-year college writing would agree with this guide, for textbooks and rhetorics insist that good argumentation and persuasion require such attention to these details. I would also argue that these requirements often evade the students when they write research papers for any course. As mine have admitted, they instead focus primarily on filling the required set number of pages.

Methodologies and evidence of student learning I will measure the data via several strategies. Comparison to control group: During AY07-08, I asked four sections of ENG 102 to adhere to the four- to six-page requirement. I will review those arguments in attempt to determine how well students developed their arguments within those parameters. Reflective statements: I will ask students to reflect on the writing process by asking, among other question, at what point they knew they were "finished" or had developed their ideas enough. I want to know what in their argument convinced them that they'd provided a sufficient amount of evidence for their audience and that they'd interpreted the evidence well enough and to be very specific about when they felt that sense of completion. Practice peer reviews: I will ask students to review development of arguments written in past classes (not sure if I'll reveal that those students were required to write four to six pages). Evaluation of finished work: The students are required to compose four formal arguments: argumentative synthesis essay, op-ed, commentary, and proposal. I will evaluate each argument against the standard measures that I employ in the course (strength of thesis, familiarity with purpose and audience, logic of argument and organization, use of evidence and research, and grace of writing) to determine its adequacy. Op-Ed Guidelines Proposal Guidelines Commentary Guidelines

Project summary Students in first-year writing courses suggest that they've fully developed their arguments when they've used all of their external sources and have reached the maximum number of pages assigned by their instructors. By removing page-number requirements, I'd like to see if students are better able to determine when they've finished writing and have met the needs of their readers.

History of Word Count in the UWC English Department According to the most senior members of the UWC English Department, word count requirements per course have gone critically unexamined since before 1978. According to one member, "5,500 and 4,000 were used as part of the guidelines for 102 and 101 when I joined the Colleges in 1978. I have no idea what was the rationale. Don't know anything about 098, except the course was developed after I joined the Colleges."

Current UWC English Department Requirements 101 faculty and lecturers contacted (English dept listserv includes retirees and members no longer employed by the department); 68 responses (68% of department) Most respondents require or at least suggest a word or page count: --following recommendations of the department's most senior members (e.g., "I know that when the department looks at my materials for evaluation/retention that they will see that I am fulfilling the departmental requirement for classes") --indicators of development (a one-page argument is less developed than a five-page argument; helping students develop ability to expand on ideas; remind students that long arguments don't equate with good arguments) --no specific assignment requirements as long as the students fill the course's word-count requirement (so some final assignments may reach twelve or more pages) --some maximize the requirement to teach long-winded students to write concisely --gives the students a sense of control over their writing; in other words, they must adjust their writing in order to fall within those parameters --grading load (e.g., "I like shorter papers because we teach too many sections and I can't grade 10-page papers and still do my job well") Deviant 1: "I want students to begin to recognize and take responsibility for shaping the texts they create based on the needs of their thesis, purpose, and argument rather than a predetermined number of words/pages that they then try to fill up [in their portfolios] just to meet it in some arbitrary way." Deviant 2: "I want students to concentrate on fulfilling the assignment itself and not on how long or short their work is."

Preliminary results, findings, conclusions, & implications--reflections on the data collected during AY 2007-08, when I required students to write five to six pages per research paper. First, the majority of students admit that the most difficult problem they face is finding sources and developing their arguments with so much information once they found it. Second, it seems that they believe they've finished writing when they've incorporated all of their sources into the paper. It never pertains to how well they think they developed their argument or if they met the needs of their readers. At the same time, my comments tell the writers to better develop arguments because they tend to repeat themselves. Only a couple reflective statements revealed the difficulty of meeting the 5-6 page requirement.

Career relevance & impact 1. Requires me to examine when I've finished my own arguments. 2. Provides strategies to carry into the classroom; must investigate how students perceive the idea of completion.

Abbreviated Working Bibliography Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2007). Learning to write in higher education: Students' perceptions of an intervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 77-89. Gardner, T. (2008). Designing writing assignments. Urbana: NCTE. Huot, B., & O'Neill, P. (Eds.). (2009). Assessing writing: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford. Kutney, J. P. (2007). Will writing awareness transfer to writing performance? Response to Downs and Wardle. College Composition and Communication, 59(2), 276-279. Mitchler, S. J. (2006). Writing back. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 33(4), 446-454. Prowse, S., Duncan, N., Hughes, J., & Burke, D. (2007). "...Do that and I'll raise your grade": Innovative module design and recursive feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 437-445. Sakihama, H. (2005). Does a length limitation promote better expository writing? Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 62-73. Vandenberg, P., Hum, S., & Clary-Lemon, J. (Eds.). (2006). Relations, locations, positions: Composition theory for writing teachers. Urbana: NCTE. White, E. M. (2006). Defining by assessing. In P. Sullivan & H. Tinberg (Eds.), What is "college-level" writing? (pp. 243-266). Urbana: NCTE.