Campus Writing and Speaking Program · NC State
WOLF Workbook
For the faculty liaison running Written and Oral Literacy Facilitation in a department or program. The workbook carries you through the three stages, saves as you go, and produces the Writing and Speaking Curriculum Plan from your own answers.
What WOLF is
WOLF works with departments, programs, and colleges to develop discipline-specific approaches to writing and speaking instruction. The goal is to make the communication instruction already in your curriculum visible and sustainable, fill in what is missing, and connect it to the outcomes your discipline already holds. The central product is a Writing and Speaking Curriculum Plan (WSCP), a document your department owns. Departments that complete the program earn CWSP certification, and each liaison (up to three per department or program) receives $1,000.
- Stage 1 · Inquiry. Where are we? CWSP meets with the department to assess current writing and speaking practices, identify what is working and what is missing, and confirm the faculty liaison. The stage produces a clear picture of the curriculum as it stands.
- Stage 2 · Design. What should be different? The department, with CWSP support, develops the WSCP: outcomes for writing and speaking in the discipline, mapped to courses and levels, with assignment and assessment approaches. Faculty author it.
- Stage 3 · Evidence. How do we know it is working? The department implements the WSCP, collects assessment data, and uses it to refine the plan. Completion brings CWSP certification, recognition, and the mini grant.
Your role as liaison
You are the point of contact between your department and CWSP. You facilitate; you do not produce everything yourself. You connect CWSP to your colleagues, translate disciplinary context into curriculum decisions, and keep the work moving between consultations. You need institutional knowledge of your department and enough trust from colleagues to facilitate honest conversation about the curriculum. Expertise in writing pedagogy is CWSP's job.
CWSP handles the pedagogical scaffolding, provides templates and tools, co-leads workshops, and consults one-on-one. The WSCP that results is your department's document, owned, revised, and sustained by faculty, with CWSP as a continuing resource.
What WOLF is not
WOLF does not ask departments to add writing-intensive courses, require faculty to become writing or speaking specialists, or produce a plan that looks the same across disciplines. A Chemistry WSCP looks different from a Communication WSCP, by design. CWSP supports that specificity.
WOLF runs on no fixed calendar. Departments move through the stages at a pace that fits their context, and CWSP is available throughout.
Engaging your colleagues
Start with questions. Before presenting the WSCP as a project, ask colleagues what challenges they face with student writing and speaking, what they notice is missing, and what they wish students arrived knowing. Those conversations surface the disciplinary specificity a WSCP needs, and they build investment before any formal process begins.
Workload, grading burden, and skepticism about program initiatives deserve a hearing. You do not have to answer them. Relay them to CWSP and bring the responses back. Nominating a colleague for a Communication Champion letter early signals that WOLF recognizes work already being done.
The AI Literacies track
A department can enter WOLF through AI Literacies: structured consultations, policy review, and curricular mapping focused on how generative AI is governed and taught in the discipline. The track stands alone or opens into full WOLF participation, and it connects to Stage 2, where AI literacy outcomes join the WSCP. See AI Literacies, the faculty workbook, and the three-level framework.
Who you are
CWSP records a department's progress by liaison and program. These fields stay in this browser and travel with every save.
Required fields are marked with *. Everything else fills in as the work proceeds.
Where your department is
WOLF runs two to three academic years at the department's own pace. Set the stage you are in and the dates you have. The sidebar then shows which stage is current, which are done, and which lie ahead.
| Period | Stage | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Months 1–2 | Inquiry | Initial consultation with CWSP, faculty interest meeting, syllabi gathered, liaison role confirmed |
| Months 3–8 | Design | Needs assessment, faculty workshops, learning outcomes drafted, curriculum mapped, WSCP finalized and approved |
| Months 9–18 | Evidence, early | WSCP implemented in courses, rubrics and assignment templates distributed, early data collected, mid-cycle check-in |
| Months 19–30 | Evidence, completion | WSCP refined from assessment data, final documentation submitted, certification and mini grant awarded |
Stage 1 · Inquiry
Usually about one semester.
Inquiry means asking questions. You schedule the first consultation, gather what gives CWSP a picture of current practice, and begin building faculty awareness. You do not need answers yet. Five activities, then a submission that records the stage with CWSP.
Confirm your role
The sentence or two you used. CWSP learns from how liaisons introduce the work.
Syllabus inventory
List the courses where students write or speak for assessment. The inventory is the raw material for the curriculum map in Stage 2. Gaps are as informative as concentrations, so list courses with no writing or speaking too, and say so. Add what you have; rows left blank are fine.
Where writing and speaking concentrate, where they are absent, and what that says about how communication is valued in the curriculum now.
Needs assessment
Brief surveys, 10 to 12 questions, faculty and student versions, collect perceptions of current instruction and show where gaps are felt most. Google Forms exports to Sheets for analysis. CWSP has faculty and student survey templates. Ask for them at your first consultation, or write to kkcole2@ncsu.edu. Record what came back.
Sample questions
Faculty. Which courses in your teaching include a significant writing or speaking component? What do you find most difficult about teaching writing and speaking in your discipline? Where do you think students arrive least prepared?
Students. In which courses have you received substantial feedback on your writing or speaking this semester? What communication skill do you feel least confident about in your discipline? Where do you wish you had more instruction?
Patterns, with a few responses in faculty members' own words.
Where faculty and students agree, and where they diverge.
DASA Assessment holds course-level outcome data across the university. Note what you requested or received, if anything. CWSP helps with the request.
Where AI already sits
AI tools are present in every writing context your students work in. Inquiry includes finding where they already appear in the curriculum, explicitly or implicitly, and how faculty govern them now. The AI Literacies workbook, Cluster 01, runs this at full depth for a faculty cohort. Record the picture here.
Named by faculty or students, permitted or otherwise.
Syllabus statements, department guidance, or silence.
Stage 1 reflection
Submit Stage 1
Submitting records the stage with CWSP, files a formatted copy of your responses in your department's WOLF folder, and emails the copy to you as a Word file and a PDF. Your work also stays in this browser. Submit again after revising; each submission is kept.
Stage 2 · Design
Usually two to three semesters.
Design is where the Writing and Speaking Curriculum Plan gets written. Faculty author it; CWSP co-leads the workshops and consults between them; you keep it moving. The five activities below are the plan's five parts. Answer them in conversation with colleagues, over several sessions, and the plan assembles itself at the end of the stage. Bring any part to CWSP at any point.
A WSCP is specific to this discipline and this curriculum. Where a prompt asks for examples, the examples are prompts for conversation, and a Chemistry answer should look nothing like a Communication answer.
Your discipline's communication
Before mapping outcomes, say what writing and speaking do in your discipline: the genres, the readers and listeners, and what graduates are expected to produce. Write in the plural, since the answers belong to the department.
Academic and professional genres both. Research reports, policy briefs, case studies, clinical notes, grant proposals, technical memos.
Research presentations, client briefings, oral defenses, clinical communication, team facilitation, public testimony.
A policy brief assumes a different reader than a lab report. A client presentation runs on different norms than a conference paper.
Outcomes by level
One line per level is enough to start. Write outcomes in the discipline's terms. "Write clearly" is a general outcome; "write a methods section a reviewer in the field accepts without revision" belongs to a discipline. Number them as you go (W1, S1), so the map in Activity 8 refers to them.
Pack Proficiencies, accreditation SLOs, or program outcomes already on record. Say where the WSCP outcomes extend them.
Curriculum map
List the courses where writing and speaking are taught, practiced, or assessed, with the assignment and the outcome it addresses. Gaps are as informative as concentrations. The button copies your Stage 1 inventory into the first rows.
Where writing and speaking concentrate, where they are absent, and what the distribution says about how communication is valued in the curriculum.
Scaffolding by level, for filling the gaps
Introductory. Orientation: students learn what writing and speaking look like in the field and practice at low stakes. Short response and reflection papers, lab or field reports with structured templates, annotated readings. Impromptu or short prepared presentations, structured participation protocols.
Intermediate. Disciplinary voice and argument: engaging sources, developing positions, addressing more than one audience. Research papers and literature reviews, case analyses, multi-draft assignments with structured revision. Group presentations, debates or structured argument.
Advanced and capstone. Professional communication for real audiences in real genres. Independent research papers and theses, professional documents aimed outside the classroom (grant proposals, policy briefs, technical memos, client reports), portfolios. Oral defenses, client or stakeholder presentations.
At every level. Structured peer review with four to six prompts tied to the criteria. Rubric-based self-evaluation before submission. A revision memo on multi-draft work saying what changed and why.
AI literacy in the plan
AI literacy outcomes join the plan here, in the three levels of the framework: describe the system, analyze what is built into it, decide what the situation warrants. Clusters 02 and 03 of the AI Literacies workbook produce the policy stance and the AI curricular map this part records.
Which of the three levels the curriculum addresses, and what a graduate is able to do at each.
From Cluster 02, or a note that policy work is pending.
Assessment plan, approval, and Stage 2 reflection
Assessment means being deliberate about evidence the department already collects. Name what it will collect, who reviews it and when, and how findings revise the plan. Then record the approval and reflect on the stage.
Rubric-scored samples at each level, presentation evaluations, student self-assessments, exit survey data, DASA data.
A one-hour annual conversation in a department meeting is enough. CWSP joins it.
Approval
Stage 2 reflection
Writing and Speaking Curriculum Plan
Submit Stage 2
Submitting files the plan and your reflection with CWSP, generates the Writing and Speaking Curriculum Plan as a document for the chair to sign, and emails it to you as a Word file and a PDF. Submit again after revisions; each version is kept.
Stage 3 · Evidence
Usually about two semesters, beginning after at least one cycle of the plan in courses.
The plan moves into courses. Assignments and rubrics go out, evidence comes back, and the department uses it to refine the plan. Your role shifts to monitoring and communication: keeping faculty connected, channeling feedback to CWSP, and helping the department read its own data. Completion brings certification, recognition letters, and $1,000 for each liaison.
Evidence collected
Record what the department collected against the plan it wrote in Stage 2, and what the first review found. Representative student samples with rubric scores are the most direct evidence. Surveys and DASA data give context.
Patterns across levels, with a figure or two where you have them.
Rubrics for your discipline
CWSP's sample rubrics name the dimensions that appear across disciplines. The descriptors are the part a discipline rewrites. For each criterion, keep it or drop it, and describe exemplary work in your field's terms; the lower levels follow from that description. Uncheck a criterion to leave it out of your rubric. Both rubrics use a four-level scale (exemplary, proficient, developing, beginning), which maps onto most grading contexts.
Weight delivery with care for neurodivergent students and multilingual speakers. Where communication is not the primary outcome of a course, content carries more weight than delivery. The visual aids criterion does not fit every setting, such as panels, clinical presentations, or oral defenses without slides.
Writing rubric
CWSP's version: Thesis or central claim is clear, specific, and positions the writer within the disciplinary conversation. Purpose is evident and sustained. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Evidence is specific, relevant, and integrated. Sources are engaged critically. Documentation follows the discipline's conventions. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Structure serves the argument. Sections are organized and transitions purposeful. The piece follows the conventions of its genre. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Tone, diction, and formality fit the discipline and audience. The writer holds a consistent voice within the field's norms. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Errors are rare and do not affect readability or credibility. Rewrite it, or keep it.
Oral presentation rubric
CWSP's version: Central claim is clear and supported. Content shows disciplinary understanding and suits the context and audience. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Clear opening, body, and close. Transitions help the audience follow. Time is used purposefully. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Pace, volume, and enunciation suit the audience. Filler is minimal. Delivery sounds practiced, not scripted. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: The speaker addresses the audience through eye contact, responsive language, or questions, and adapts to what the audience knows. Rewrite it, or keep it.
CWSP's version: Visual aids are clear, add meaning rather than repeat the spoken text, and attribute sources. Rewrite it, or keep it.
A norming session has faculty score the same work with the shared rubric and compare. Note whether the department held one, and what it changed.
Recognition
Writing and speaking instruction is among the least visible labor in a department. A Communication Champion letter recognizes a faculty member; a Hidden Infrastructure Award recognizes a graduate student or staff member. Name up to three people. CWSP writes the letter from what you give here and sends it on letterhead, for annual reviews and promotion files.
Name the course or program and what they did. "Designed and iterated a multi-draft research writing sequence in CH 201 that gives students structured feedback at each stage."
Certification
Certification is awarded when the plan is implemented, at least one cycle of assessment data has been collected and reviewed, and the documentation below is in. Each liaison, up to three per department or program, receives $1,000 at certification. Check what is in hand; the Stage 2 submission already holds the plan and the map.
Workshops, consultations, norming sessions, department meetings where the plan was discussed, with dates and rough attendance.
A shared folder link, or a note that they were sent to CWSP by email.
Who owns the annual review, where the plan lives, and when it comes up again.
Stage 3 reflection
Submit Stage 3
Submitting sends the certification record, the adapted rubrics, and any nominations to CWSP, and emails you the rubrics and the record as a Word file and a PDF. CWSP reviews the documentation, issues the certification letter and the mini grant, and sends the recognition letters.