I am attaching for the information of Senators a 

memorandum from Dr. J.M. Munro, Academic Vice-President, 

on the subject of a University response to a perceived 

"Literacy" problem. SCUS has devoted part of two recent 

meetings to a general discussion of Dr. Munro's recommendations 

and has not as yet formulated a recommendation for Senate. 

However, I am taking the liberty of informing Senate of the 

discussions in order to encourage active participation by 

any Senator or other member of the University who may wish 

to participate. 

I have been asked by SCUS to obtain additional information 

prior to the next discussion.. Among the questions raised are 

the following: 

.

?

1. To what extent is evidence available which would suqgest 

that a pre-admission test would not be feasible or useful? 

2. Would it be useful to limit the problem we are addressing 

to "writing skills" rather than "literacy" even though we 

recognize that the latter has several other important 

dimensions? 

3.. How do other Universities deal with this "problem" and 

what are the costs and benefits of alternative approaches? 

4.

Should we adopt the approach proposed, are there tools for 

assessment adequate for the purpose? 

5.

What are the current mission, enrolment and costs of the 

Reading1 Study Centre and English 010 (Writing) and how 

do these relate to an overall strategy for improving 

writing 

skills? 

Some members of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate 

Studies were strongly inclined toward an approach which would 

require one or more course(s) in writing and related fields of 

all undergraduates at the University. It was noted that many 

Universities have had such mandatory courses and that it has 

become somewhat unfashionable to mandate particular courses in 

.

?

recent years but that it may be a direction we should seriously 

consider. 

page2.... 

page 2 - For Information 

Literacy 

1980-06-18 

If it is possible to do so, the Senate Committee on 

Undergraduate Studies will bring forward a recommendation 

for consideration by Senate in September. It may be that 

such a recommendation will be for "in principle" approval 

of a particular course of action so that implications could 

then be fully explored and detailed planning undertaken. 

cc: J. Chase 

D. R. Birch 

Chairman, •SCUS 

Literacy 

2 May 1980 

M. Munro 

Vice-President, Academic 

cUs

Major concern 

over the literacy problem — low,quaij.ty, 

writing by undergraduate students — has existed at Simon 

Fraser University for over five years. Discussion and action 

to provide solutions to the 

problem have involved a large 

number of people and 

a variety of initiatives. Despite these 

efforts, we stilihaveno general policy and no comprehensive 

program that address the literacy problem. 

Last fall 

I

undertook 

a review 

of our literacy problem. 

My review included reading 

(in many cases, re-reading) the 

various reports and memoranda that had been written on this 

subject over the past five years, discussing literacy 

with the 

Deans and the President, and meeting with 

a group of interested 

Simon Fraser faculty and professional staff to discuss a draft 

paper. 

Based on this review, I would like 

to request the Senate 

.

Committee on Undergraduate Studies to consider the following 

proposals for subsequent presentation to Senate. 

1. That Simon Fraser University require all under- 

graduate students to achieve an adequate competence 

in the written use of the English language. 

2.'That the, standard of "adequate competence" be main- 

tained by a system involving referral of students 

with apparent writing 'problems by course instructors 

for assessment of writing skil1s If warranted, 

completion of a basic writing course, or courses would 

be required. 

The first of these proposals is recommended to establish the 

principle that, although this University does not have a required 

English course in its curriculum, it cares as much about the 

writing skills of its graduates 

'

as universities that do. At 

present, this basic statement of academic philosophy is lackinq. 

Acceptance of this proposal is required before measures to 

improve literacy can be considered. 

The second 

what is a Univ 

instructors to 

will create an 

writing skills 

avoid imposing 

need it. 

proposal will involve the whole University in 

rsity problem. The mechanism for uslnq course 

refer students for assessment of their writing 

increased awareness of the need for adequate 

among our-students. At the same time, it will 

the assessment procedure on students who do not 

2

To: D.R.Birch 

Chairman, scus 

?

- 2 - 

?

2 May 1980 

Some have argued for an alternative version of the second 

proposal. A compulsory admissions test could be used to screen 

students 

the advantage 

into 

of

the

establishing 

assessment process. 

a consistent 

Such 

literacy 

a

'

test would 

standard 

have 

across the University and of ensuring that all students were 

It

evaluated. 

would be 

However, 

expensive 

a

to

test 

administer, 

would have 

create 

special 

problems 

dis

advantAges. 

in the 

recruitment of part-time students, and make the transfer student 

process difficult. 

The proposals being advanced in this paper are designed for 

und

ergraduate students. The admissions process for graduate 

students seems to provide enough opportunity for assessment of 

The

individual 

standard 

qualifications 

recommended in 

to

the

avoid 

first 

major 

proposal 

literacy 

would 

d

ifficulties. 

apply, 

of course, to all undergraduate students, whether they were 

native or non-native speakers of English. The second proposal 

is intended to apply only to native speakers. i will be writing 

admto 

the

ission-linked 

Senate Undergraduate 

program of 

Admissions 

compulsory 

Board 

assessment 

concerning 

of writing 

an

skills 

in an 

Eng

for

lish-speaking 

non-native speakers 

environment 

of English. 

for a number 

Those 

of

who

years 

have 

would 

lived 

be

recommending 

admitted without 

to SUAB 

this 

that 

compulsory 

the TOEFL score 

assessment. 

minimum for 

i

will 

undergraduate 

also be 

admission be raised. 

If

SCUS 

and

Senate 

accept these two proposals, a number of 

important tasks will remain before this literacy policy could 

be put into effect. 

1. E 

stablishing procedures for referring students and 

ensuring 

this policy. 

their compliance with 

the requirements of 

2.

Designing and testing the assessment procedure. 

3.

Developing a program of basic writing courses. 

4.

Ensuring that students and all instructional staff 

understand the objectives and requirements of the 

policy. 

It is my view that the University cannot afford to commit 

substant.a1 financial resources to this program. I would expect 

that the majority of its costs would be borne directly by the 

students enrolled in the courses following the policies applied 

to other non-credit programs in the University. 

3

To: D.R. Birch 

?

- 3 - 

Chairman, SCUS 

2 May 1980 

I believe this to be an important matter for the quality, 

actual and perceived, of our undergraduate program. I know that 

the measures that are proposed here will not have universal 

support. However, I believe that a broad cross-section of the 

University will recognize the urgent need to take measures to 

deal with the literacy problem. I urge your Committee to consider 

these recommendations with dispatch. I would be pleased to assist 

in any way I can. 

I.M. Munro 

JMM/em 

cc. H.M. Evans 

K.G. Pedersen 