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 (1 (CCCC) st certification) literacy “crisis”/debate? Plato’s skepticism of writing) • 1873: Harvard’s first written entrance exam (literacy debate: middle-class seeking professional, technical • 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 (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)

21

st

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, Missouri Columbia, 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