General Education
Writing Across the Curriculum
Retreat
Session I:
Context for Writing Across the
Curriculum at UNLV
October 6, 2006
Session I Goals
• Discuss charge of WAC Steering Committee and
purpose of the retreat
• Introduce some history and basic premises of
WAC
• Discuss group’s experiences with and attitudes
toward WAC
1-Minute “Nutshell” Exercise
• What is your role in developing students’
communication (writing and speaking) skills?
Answer question in 1-3 sentences
Why are we here?
• 2000: The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
recommends changes to the gen ed core and “suggests” a WAC
program:
“The College [of Liberal Arts] should look seriously at the provision of
writing instruction with the objective of forming a writing across the
curriculum program as supported by faculty most closely associated
with writing instruction.” (p. 64)
• 2003-2004: General Education Task Force revises core and
recommends implementing WAC for the following reasons:
– Provide students with intensive practice in writing in their fields, beyond
the writing required in freshman composition, particularly in majors that
do not require much writing
– Produce student writing that facilitates assessment of a host of student
learning outcomes
– Be a vehicle for portfolio assessment
– Create a number of seminar-sized courses conducive to engaged
learning between faculty and students
• 2004: Rosenberg appointed Director of General Education
Why are we here?
• 2005: Rosenberg initiates pilot “Writing Links”
program (funded by PIA grant)
• Spring 2006: Beth Rosenberg creates WAC
Steering Committee
– Write recommendation report for
implementing WAC end of Spring ‘07
• Spring 2006: Committee meets twice
– Discussed feasibility of “WI” requirement
– Discussed WAC vs. CAC
Why CAC?
• CAC: written, spoken, digital, visual
• Recognizes that writing and speech
communication often connected
• Recognizes shifts in modes of communication,
especially digital and visual
• Accounts for multimodal learning, multiple
intelligences
• Establishes administrative structure, avoids
redundancy
• Allows for more interdisciplinary participation
and leadership
• It’s the trend (i.e., more fundable initiative)
Purpose of Today’s Retreat
• Gather more input on plans for implementing
WAC at UNLV
• Develop ideas for WAC objectives and mission
statement
• Work toward a consensus on the best model for
implementing a WAC program
Format of Retreat
• Part I: Context for WAC at UNLV
• Part II: State of Undergraduate Writing at UNLV
• Part III: Mission and objectives for Gen Ed/WAC
program
• Part IV: Choosing the best model
• Format: presentation, writing, discussion
– You’re representing the interests of your faculty,
departments, majors, etc.
– Please speak your mind!
“Why Are We Here?” Part II: Structural Problem
•
•
Russell identifies 3 problems with writing instruction in higher ed:
– Elective curriculum, departmental organization, emphasis on
research eroded faculty’s shared responsibility for assigning and
assessing writing and speaking.
– Between 1900-1975, the focus on writing instruction in higher ed
shifts solely to the freshman composition requirement rather
than improving writing university-wide (i.e., a structural problem
with higher ed writing instruction)
– Historically, literacy “crises,” or more properly, debates over
changing standards for literacy, motivated “reform movements”
designed to address structural problems (Russell’s Writing in
the Academic Disciplines; see also Daniels, Rose)
Lesson: be wary of quick-fixes to the “problem” of student writing.
Causes are complex, solutions necessitate careful rethinking of
institutionalized beliefs and practices
Literacy Debates in Context
• Greeks (1st literacy “crisis”/debate? Plato’s skepticism of writing)
• 1873: Harvard’s first written entrance exam
(literacy debate: middle-class seeking professional, technical
certification)
• 1885: Harvard English A freshman requirement, Eng B required
sophomore course, Eng C five forensics (argumentative papers, topics
chosen by student from interdisciplinary list)
• 1900: English A only required course – focus shifts to reforming
freshman composition rather than improving writing university-wide
• 1901-1930s: NCTE and the Cooperation Movement
• 1940s-1950s: Communications Movement, combined speech/writing
classes, Conference on College Composition and Communication
(CCCC) (literacy debate: GI Bill)
• 1960s: Composition researchers focus on basic writing (Shaughnessy),
classical rhetoric (Corbett), cognitive processes (Emig) (literacy debate:
open admissions policies)
• 1974: First WAC program Carleton College, MN
(Sheils’ “Why Johnny Can’t Write” Newsweek 1975)
1985: Griffin identifies common features of 139
WAC programs
• Writing centers, tutors, and fellows
• Faculty workshops: “writing-to-learn” activities
– Short, impromptu or otherwise informal writing tasks that help
students think through key concepts or ideas presented in a
course (see Jablonski and Nagelhout)
– Writing tasks limited to less than five minutes of class time or are
assigned as brief, out-of-class assignments
• Curricular changes:
– Writing links
– Writing intensive courses
• Usually 2 courses required (ranges today from 1-5 courses)
• Taught by specialist in designated field
• Required to do a certain amount of writing (e.g., 5,000 words,
20 pages, 5 papers)
• Must have opportunity to revise some writing
• Must receive feedback from instructor or assistant
WAC’s shared premises circa 1985
• Writing skills must be practiced and reinforced throughout the
curriculum, otherwise they atrophy, no matter how well they were taught
in the beginning
• Since written discourse is central to a university education, the
responsibility for the quality of student writing is university-wide
• Writing is a powerful tool for learning
– Promotes active learning
– Students use own language to synthesize and assimilate
– Promotes participation and discussion (everyone has something to
say)
– Reveals what students are thinking and learning (feedback to
teacher, feedback to students)
– Creates student/teacher and teacher/student dialogue
– Allows students to reflect metacognitively and personally about
learning
– Creates record or text that can be either private or shared
McLeod and Shirley’s 1987 WAC Survey
• By 1987, ~38% higher ed institutions with WAC programs
– Survey mailed to all 2,735 4-yr and 2-yr colleges; 1,112 returned, 427
indicated having a WAC program)
• WAC programs incorporated a range of components
– Faculty workshops & seminars, follow-up meetings with faculty, writing
centers, writing fellows (TAs assigned to courses as writing coaches),
program director or resident writing consultant, all-university writing
committee, WAC advisory committee, in-house WAC publications, informal
but regular gatherings, outside speakers or consultants, a writing lab or
tutorials for students
• WAC programs evolved a range of curricular elements
– A WAC freshman composition course, upper-division writing-intensive
courses in the English department, upper-division writing-intensive courses
taught in other departments, adjunct writing classes attached to courses in
other discipline
• 1980s: WAC gains “top-down” administrative support, but often at
expense of faculty buy-in
1980s & 90s: Socio-Rhetorical Composition
Research
•
•
•
Academic writing is not a general skill that transfers easily to new
situations. Each discipline has its own conventions of language use and
style and that these conventions must be taught to students so that they
might successfully participate in academic discourse. (McCarthy)
Expectations can vary from classroom to classroom in the same
discipline (Herrington).
Leads to learning-to-write or “writing in the disciplines” (WID) emphasis
–
–
–
–
–
–
Focuses on better understanding and teaching forms of writing within
specific discourse communities (e.g., writing as a scientist, engineer,
etc.)
Practice professional communication
Practice thinking and research skills relevant to analyses in the
discipline
Integrate and analyze course content in formal “transactional” writing
Prepares students for a range of careers in the field
Reports, article reviews, and research papers most commonly used
assignments in a WID-focused course
But does it work?
• Bok: “college helps some but by no means all students
improve their writing ability.…There is clearly room for
improvement.” (2006)
– Whitla’s 1978 found some improvement, but science
majors improved least
– Sommers’ 1997 study of 400 Harvard students found
improvement depended on the amount of writing,
amount of feedback, familiarity with subject, and
degree of ownership (“an opportunity to explore the
issues that matter most to them and to figure out why
they matter”)
• Ridley and Smith: “there is a highly significant
contribution of the curricular emphasis on writing that
comes through strongly when pre-existing writing skill
level is controlled.” (2006)
More Research
• Hughes: If a WAC program can show it has led to
teaching that produces better student writing (responding
well, calling for revision, giving good assignments, etc.),
it follows that student writing will improve (1996; see
Hillocks 1984)
• Walvoord et al.: long-term qualitative study of 3 WAC
programs, 700+ faculty. Faculty reported adopting WAC
strategies that enhance learning and valuing change in
teaching philosophy (1997; See Thaiss and Zawacki
2006)
• Ochsner & Fowler: question body of research based on
student and teacher self-reports, recommend more direct
measurements and that “multimodal learning” be
adopted (2004)
21st century: Resurgence of Interest in WAC
Programs
• Schools start new WAC/CAC initiatives
– 1997: N.C. State’s Campus Speaking and Writing Program started
– 1999: Duke University creates University Writing Program with WID
emphasis, first-year and WI courses taught by interdisciplinary post-doc
“fellows”
– 2005: 3 schools under Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools focus Quality Enhancement Plans
on writing
• Schools get national recognition
– 2001: Clemson CAC program named Time/Princeton Review college of
the year (Pearce Center for Professional Communication)
– 2002: US News starts best “writing in the disciplines” programs list
(Colorado State, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, UCLA, MissouriColumbia, Washington State)
• Programs get big endowments
– 2004: LSU receives $5 million to start communication across the
Curriculum (CxC) program
– 2006: Miami of Ohio’s Center for Writing Excellence receives $10.5 gift
If reform efforts accompany literacy crises or
debates…
What might be some causes of the current literacy
crisis/debate?
• Shift in demographics?
• Increased access to higher education?
• Changing standards for literacy?
X-I-10 but 2MI, thku
• 2001 “More Employers Demand Better E-Mail Writing
Skills” (Goforth)
• 2002 “E-mail Exposes the Literacy Gap” (Donovan)
• 2002 National Commission on Writing formed by College
Board
• 2003 “Why Johnny Can’t Write, Even Though He Went to
Princeton” Chronicle of Higher Ed
• 2003 Peer Review writing issue (“Writing…”)
• 2004: “Writing: A Ticket to Work . . . Or a Ticket Out.” A
survey of 120 major American corporations by NCW
Features of “Enduring” WAC Programs
• Try to address shortcomings of first-year only model of writing
instruction by making structural and/or cultural changes
– Try to spread writing “across” and “up” the curriculum
• Incorporate writing-to-learn (informal writing as tool for active
learning) and learning-to-write (writing as tool for
professionalization) approaches
• Secure top-down administrative support and funding
• Seek grassroots faculty support
– Need to identify faculty priorities and synchronize them with
program goals; investigate faculty needs and priorities and
initiate collaborative efforts to respond accordingly
• Develop strong, consistent leadership
• Implement more components, more curricular elements, and
engage more in assessment (Miraglia & McLeod 1997)
Discussion Activity
•
•
•
•
Write 3 minutes on each prompt:
1. What is your experience with WAC?
2. How does it relate to what you just heard, e.g., have
you modified the position you articulated at the
beginning of this session about your role in developing
students’ communication skills?
3. How does WAC fit into UNLV’s goal to become a
premier metropolitan research university? How does
WAC fit into UNLV’s faculty culture?
Compare your responses with others at your table. Are
there similarities? What are the differences?
As a group, identify any themes or patterns among topics
discussed
Jot down any questions you have that don’t get answered
and we’ll address them at the end of the last session