Presentation:

Introduction

This presentation offered advice to both administrators and teachers on ways to include writing across courses and in disciplines at the university level. In terms of theory in writing across the curriculum and writing in disciplines (WAC/WID), writing is used in courses both to enhance learning and critical thinking and to help students build proficiency as communicators. The content of the presentation derive (1) from the presenter’s many years of experience in leading workshops for faculty on successful techniques and (2) from two of his recent research projects, carried out in collaboration with colleagues at George Mason University and at the University of California at Davis (where he serves as Director of the University Writing Program).

One project, a survey of WAC/WID programs at colleges and universities in the U.S. and Canada, describes programmatic features that are used across more than 1300 institutions and therefore can provide helpful suggestions on how to integrate WAC/WID into the institutional structure. The second, earlier project captured in the book Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life, provides a theoretical basis for the benefits to student learning of teachers’ use of writing in courses in disciplines.

The presentation began with an overview of the U.S./Canada survey research as part of the broader International WAC/WID Mapping Project, which Dr. Thaiss coordinates. The Mapping Project includes a second, very different survey aimed at eliciting programmatic features and objectives of initiatives in the teaching of writing around the world. Because the Reinvention Center focuses on U.S. higher education, this presentation looked only at results from the U.S./Canada survey, which the presenter has carried out with PhD student Tara Porter. This survey, modeled after the only previous U.S. survey conducted in 1987 (McLeod and Shirley), aims to enumerate and describe typical components of current WAC/WID programs. Survey questions covered such topics as program goals and emphases, curricular components, funding sources, goals of assessment, and leadership structure (director’s rank, administrative compensation in course releases, reporting lines).

Though data from the 2006-2008 survey are still under analysis, Thaiss and Porter have noted, among other findings, an increase from 38% (1987 survey) to 48% in the proportion of WAC/WID programs among all schools responding. Most pertinent to the mission of the Reinvention Center is the finding that 59% of all PhD-granting universities in the response group report having a WAC/WID program in place. Table One describes the WAC/WID programs across institution type.

Also significant in the findings is the variety of curricular structures that implement WAC/WID, as captured in the survey responses. Typical structures include:

• “Writing Intensive” or “Writing Emphasis” courses required either in the lower or upper divisions of the undergraduate experience
• “Linked” or “Cluster” Courses, whereby sections of dedicated writing courses are paired with courses in diverse majors
• “Writing Fellows” programs, in which trained undergraduate or graduate students work as peer tutors, often assigned to specific majors
• Close co-operation between a Writing Center (that supports student writing across majors) and the workshops for faculty carried out by the WAC/WID program
• First-Year Seminars or “Learning Communities” that focus instruction in writing in courses across majors
• WAC/WID initiatives are more closely linked with requirements in oral communication and proficiency in digital technologies

Based on respondents’ comments in the survey and concerns expressed by faculty and administrators in workshops and at conferences, Dr. Thaiss noted three common issues in building and sustaining WAC/WID programs: (1) faculty incentives and training, (2) student readiness and development, and (3) the relationship between WAC/WID and assessment. Each issue received attention in the presentation.

The survey results showed that the most common activity in WAC/WID programs is some form of faculty development, with more than 75% of programs reporting that they conduct faculty training workshops and more than 30% conduct faculty seminars. More than 40% report other types of faculty gatherings devoted to WAC/WID. Just over 30% of PhD-granting institutions report that WAC/WID has inspired collaborative research across disciplines, while a similar percentage of WAC/WID programs support travel to writing-related conferences. In the most common WAC/WID workshops, faculty from across disciplines are invited; they are trained by WAC/WID program faculty in methods of designing assignments and responding to student prose.

The presenter emphasized that continuity in faculty training is essential to sustain the momentum begun by workshops. The collaborative research and conference support mentioned above are key techniques for sustainability, as are recognition through newsletters and on websites (31% of PhD-granting institutions).

Other uses of WAC/WID funding are also key in building and sustaining faculty buy-in. Possible funding uses include individual and departmental grants of varying sizes to encourage creativity in teaching and new curriculum. For example, Writing in the Curriculum (WIC) Director Vicki Tolar Burton of Oregon State University has used mini-grants from the outset of her long-running program to spark faculty and department projects.  At Dr. Thaiss’ former institution, George Mason University, the Technology across the Curriculum (TAC) Program has partnered with WAC/WID over ten years to support worthy proposals in the uses of technology in the teaching of writing. At the University of Nebraska, Vice Provost David Wilson has featured writing curricula in a recent series of curriculum development grants, and departments and schools such as history, business administration, and architecture and design have earned support. At Dr. Thaiss’ home institution, UC Davis, the energetic Teaching Resources Center has collaborated over the years with the University Writing Program to support innovative development work in writing; annual competitions for Undergraduate Instructional Improvement grants, supported by Vice Provost Patricia Turner, have inspired numerous initiatives.

Another powerful incentive to WAC/WID participation is reduction in course load or class size.  Many colleges and universities that require “writing-intensive” or “writing-emphasis” courses across majors cap enrollments in such courses to enable instructors to give closer attention to each writer. Though there is no nationally-recommended cap for writing intensive (WI) courses similar to the maximum of twenty (20) students recommended by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) for required courses in English composition, a study by Latona (1991) of 53 institutions showed an average of 25 students in WI sections.

Alternatively, research institutions can provide graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) or undergraduate peer tutors—with adequate training in techniques of assignment design and response to writing—to assist faculty in making writing a significant part of instruction in larger sections. Dr. Thaiss described a very large course in music history and appreciation at UC Davis that enabled its professor and four GTAs to give regular writing assignments to its 400 students through the use of an electronic discussion forum. The use of regular writing in the forum format kept manageable both the instructor and TA workload and sparked noticeable improvement by the students in the critical reviews that students wrote as a standard expectation of the course.

Dr. Thaiss also described the five-year (2000-2005) study of student writing development that he and colleague Terry Myers Zawacki conducted at George Mason University. Their book, Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life, describes their data gathering from publishing faculty, from students, and from departmental assessment reports to understand how writers from diverse majors learn the discourses of their disciplines and grow in proficiency. Building conclusions from survey data, focus groups, interviews of faculty, analysis of student portfolios, and department criteria for assessment of writing, they found that students develop as writers in three rough stages as they learn the discourses of their fields. In the first stage, students pick up what they regard as easy rules for academic writing; e.g., a five-paragraph format, never using “I,” never (or always!) using the passive voice, etc. When they inevitably encounter classes and teachers with expectations that “violate” these “rules,” they feel failed by the system or the teacher. But this process allows them to enter a second stage, wherein they regard all teachers and assignments as idiosyncratic and unpredictable, and so they become attuned to nuances in teacher behavior—dress, manners, favorite expressions--that go beyond the assignments themselves.

The third-stage writers are those who have had to write for a range of teachers in their major fields, and so learn to see and appreciate the similar patterns of thought and expression that cut across the discipline. With sufficient writing practice in diverse courses, they understand both the distinction between subfields of the discipline and large patterns that characterize the field. But students will not achieve this advanced stage, which enables them to succeed as writers in a range of classes, without regular writing practice in a range of courses. Thaiss and Zawacki therefore emphasize in their conclusions the centrality of teachers’ assigning writing in diverse courses at different levels in the major in order for student writers to gain practice in using different rhetorical strategies.

Dr. Thaiss also emphasized the consistent reiteration in interviews, focus groups, and portfolio essays of the need for instructor feedback on writing in order to bring about improvement. Third-stage writers consistently described teachers who had a major impact on their writing development as those who provided them with feedback on stages or drafts of projects. Second-stage writers consistently identified feedback on a first assignment as their best indicator of how to succeed in a course that required writing. 

Assessment

Dr. Thaiss used both research projects to comment on assessment of writing in higher education. He distinguished between (1) assessment by the teacher, which he regarded as by far the more important, because it leads to student growth, and (2) larger-scale assessments that programs, institutions, and state and national bodies run for program improvement, cross-institutional comparisons, reports to funding agencies, etc.

The research that led to Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines showed the value of formative assessment (e.g., feedback on proposals or drafts, comments by peers, scaffold assignments) in promoting student advancement to higher stages of development. Making these faculty skills the centerpiece of workshops is key to the success of student writing in the classroom, regardless of discipline.

This same research also describes a successful model for carrying out one type of larger-scale assessment of writing, as it details the methods, with examples in practice, of George Mason’s department-based assessment of student-writing competence at that institution (Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines, Chapter Three). In brief, the chapter describes the theory and process of an evaluation of sample student papers that leads to development of discipline-specific rubrics. The process also leads department faculty to identify ways to improve student writing through the major curriculum.

Finally, the Mapping Project survey reveals that more than one third of all institutions that report having WAC/WID programs are engaged in assessment of their operations (Table Two). While the survey does not ask for details of assessment processes, it does ask (1) about the formality of the process, (2) whether it has been externally mandated, (3) whether it focuses on student writing improvement, and (4) whether it focuses on success of faculty development. Breaking the statistics down by institutional type shows that more than 40% of the PhD-granting institutions reported having a formal assessment of their WAC/WID programs in place, and that virtually all of these target assessment of student writing proficiency.

Discussion:

The first question raised in the discussion asked if and how library resources are used in WAC/WID programs. The presenter noted that more than 40% of survey respondents with WAC/WID programs indicated “library instruction” as an integral part of their efforts. At George Mason University, a research librarian had been an ex officio member of the WAC steering committee, while his University Writing Program at UC Davis, which houses the WAC workshop program, had created a library committee to work with librarians to build resources, enhance interdisciplinary library instruction, and develop print and online materials for writing researchers. A session participant from the University of Washington described how that institution’s librarians added resources for courses across the curriculum that require writing. Another participant noted the benefits at her institution of having a librarian come into classes to discuss writing and research in a particular field, a development beyond the traditional library tools introduction.

The discussion also highlighted techniques by which time-stressed teachers can help students improve their writing in content, structure, and syntactic expression. Thaiss emphasized that explaining and demonstrating such techniques comprises much of the agenda of most WAC faculty workshops, including those at his university. He described several popular practices for teaching with writing, including

• Short, in-class exercises to spark discussions, improve note-taking, etc.
• Regular out-of-class exercises, such as online forums, to promote close reading and synthesis of ideas
• Focused feedback on specific features of writing
• Teaching students to give useful commentary on one another’s writing
• Scaffolding assignments so that feedback on earlier work leads to improvement on later work
• Use of online discussion forums and wikis that promote student collaboration

Such techniques, he said, take into account the frequent problems that undergraduate instructors in research universities encounter with large enrollments and lack of time in a full agenda.

The discussion also corroborated the finding from the U.S./Canada survey of the close relationship that exists in most WAC/WID programs with the Writing Center (77% of PhD-granting institutions reporting). Discussants noted, for example, the effectiveness of “satellite” centers in various parts of campus, the availability of trained tutors from different majors, and the growing presence of online writing help services (or “OWLs”—online writing labs) on a campus. Thaiss emphasized statistical findings from the survey that showed combined or at least integral leadership of the WAC/WID program and the Writing Center. Historically, he noted, many WAC/WID programs originated in Writing Centers because of their cross-departmental mission.

Further, session participants emphasized that to work most effectively Centers and WAC/WID programs need to overcome the perception that assistance with writing is “remedial.” Instead, the Center, like WAC/WID faculty development, needs to help students, faculty, and administrators understand that such support is part of the necessary development of academic communicators. Thaiss noted that the research behind Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines clearly reinforced this developmental paradigm, a paradigm supported by many other researchers in writing development and genre acquisition. Moreover, findings from the international survey of the International WAC/WID Mapping Project corroborate a multi-faceted role for writing centers in Europe, Asia, and Australia, a role based on the perception of writing assistance as useful to all, not only to the least proficient.

Faculty Resistance and Insecurity

In addition to lack of time and lack of reward/recognition as causes of faculty resistance to using writing in their teaching, session participants also described insecurities that caused some teachers to stay away from WAC/WID. Teachers often feel (1) unqualified to comment on student prose because they are not grammar experts or “English teachers”; they also sometimes feel (2) insecure about their own writing ability, particularly if English is not their first language. Thaiss stressed that many effective uses of writing in courses across disciplines do not require the specialized skills of grammarians or trained teachers of writing, skills that are needed in the required courses in composition. He reasserted the value of the time-saving techniques described earlier as ways to help any teacher provide students valuable practice in academic and discipline-focused writing. He and several others in the session noted that all teachers in research disciplines are qualified by their disciplinary experience to give feedback on the thoroughness and accuracy of data and analysis in discipline-based student writing, as well as on organization of arguments, even if they might feel shaky about commenting on grammar and punctuation.

Historically, he added, many early WAC/WID programs, including his at George Mason, had begun as “faculty writing programs,” which emphasized both teaching techniques and small-group peer feedback on the faculty’s own writing. These WAC/WID programs were based on the philosophy of the National Writing Project (NWP), the now federally-funded state-by-state in-service program for K-12 teachers that began in 1974. Part of NWP philosophy has always been that the best way to learn to teach writing is to practice effective techniques using one’s own writing.

References/Resources:

Websites

1. International WAC/WID Mapping Project. Davis, 2008.  (12 Aug 2008):  University of California. 13 Dec 2008. http://mappingproject.ucdavis.edu
2. "National Writing Project". 2008.  (13 Dec 2008).13 Dec 2008 2008. http://nwp.org.(Includes links to NWP philosophy and history critical to development of early WAC/WID programs in U.S. at university level.)
3. The WAC Clearinghouse (1997, 13 Dec 2008).  Retrieved 13 Dec 2008, 2008, from http://wac.colostate.edu/ (This multi-feature site, managed by Colorado State’s Mike Palmquist, includes descriptions of many WAC/WID programs and links to websites; full texts of important works in WAC program theory, design, and operation; current and back issues of two established journals in the field; a list of WAC/WID consultants; a new Research Exchange, etc.
4. University Writing Program. Davis, 2008.  (12 Aug 2008):  University of California. 13 Dec 2008. http://writing.ucdavis.edu (See especially the materials of the Workshop Program (WAC).
5. Writing Across the Curriculum. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. 13 Dec. 2008. http://wac.gmu.edu (For WID writing guides, the assessment materials, and the section on program history over thirty years).

Publications

1. Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. (The most popular guide for teachers using writing across the curriculum).
2. Thaiss, Chris and Terry Myers Zawacki. Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2006.(See especially Chapter Three, on assessment methods in departments, and Chapter Four, on stages of student development as writers in disciplines.)
3. Susan H. McLeod, Eric Miraglia, Margot Soven, Christopher Thaiss, Eds. WAC for the New Millennium. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 2001. 299-326.(The most thorough one-volume guide for planners of WAC/WID programs.)
4. Latona, John. “What Do We Mean by ‘Writing Intensive’?” The Composition Chronicle, 4(6), October 1991, 8-9.
5. McLeod, Susan and Susan Shirley. “Appendix: National Survey of Writing Across the Curriculum Programs” Strengthening Programs for Writing Across the Curriculum. Ed. Susan H. McLeod. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988. 103-30.    

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
Writing in the Disciplines: Issues and Practices. Reinvention Center Conference Proceedings 2008. Washington, DC. Christopher Thaiss, Director, University Writing Program, UC Davis.