In Shaping Written Knowledge, Charles Bazerman traces the history and character of the experimental article in science, calling attention to the social and rhetorical forces that shaped its development. The book provides a broadly interdisciplinary exploration of an important genre and offers insights that extend far beyond its immediate focus of study. This book is available online as part of the Academic.Writing series, Landmark Publications in Writing Studies.

A brief review of this study of 20 writers over four years at Pepperdine is at: http://chronicle.com/teaching/books/2003030401b.htm "Focusing on first-year writing courses as a point of transition, not a final destination or a detour to fix literacy problems before students begin their real journey, means that many types of courses can be effective as long as they truly challenge students to move beyond their comfort zones and solve problems that are just beyond their reach."

Dialogically links scholarship in rhetoric, composition and English Studies to the perspectives of faculty outside of English, both challenging and expanding current thinking about writing pedagogy. Recognition of the centrality of writing in undergraduate education leads to extensive conversations with faculty from a variety of disciplines about writing's role in their own degree programs, scholarly disciplines, and professional practices. Explores how composition specialists might effectively talk writing with faculty across disciplines, leading to writing instruction integral to every program of study. A contemporary liberal arts quadrivium is recognized, as is the need for full involvement of faculty in every academic discipline to implement such a comprehensive rhetorical education.

Ghnassia and Dix describe an interdisciplinary writing class on "Epidemics and Aids." The course incorporates science, service learning, and writing both research papers and for a public awareness campaign. Teachers from different disciplines work with the class

Argues that faculty involved in WAC are often blissfully unaware of the motives of administrations that support WAC. Argues that WAC, which started as a "bottom-up" effort, can become institutionalized or "top-down." Observing a listserv, Holdstein finds that teachers think problems with WAC are peculiar to their university, rather than symptoms of a general problem: WAC being used deceitfully by universities. Holdstein warns that WAC can be used to avoid the issue of improving student writing. WAC can become public relations. Writing instruction may be shifted to teachers who have no interest in it; with no oversight, writing suffers. "Writing Intensive" classes may compartmentalize writing, counter to the spirit of WAC. Some universities are saying that WI classes should take the place of required composition classes. Holdstein warns that WAC may be "hijacked." Eric Martin wrote a rebuttal to this article. Available online via MUSE database.

Abstract: LeCourt extends McLeod’s notion of WAC consultants being agents of change and experimentation by suggesting that WAC consultants move beyond their current perceptions of disciplinary communities as being too rigid and resistant to changes in the teaching of writing within their disciplines. As the “third stage” of WAC, LeCourt suggests that WAC consultants not only to use students as “active partners” in creating change within foundationalist disciplines, but also use critical theory to bridge the gap between the two communities.

Martin is responding to Deborah Holdstein’s article “”Writing Across the Curriculum” and the Paradoxes of Institutional Initiatives.” He agrees that WAC programs have become “top-down,” and that programs don’t always work. But he disagrees about the cause. WAC proponents are aware that they need to convince teachers from other disciplines that writing is worth the effort, he says. The real problem is resistance from these teachers, and the solution is to not impose WAC from above, but begin with dialog with faculty. Martin also disagrees that universities use WAC deceptively. In his experience, administrators feel real pressure from businesses and community members, and really want writing to improve. But WAC directors are often not given enough access to upper administration, and so don’t have enough input. With all the different faculty agendas, WAC gets lost in the absence of clear leadership. Martin also has seen no evidence that WI classes will replace composition classes. In his experience, administrators push for more writing classes, because they feel pressure to do so. Martin says there are no sinister motives behind WAC, although mistakes have been made in implementation.

An important new collection updating WAC theory and practice.

This review considers evidence cited in support of and in opposition to Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID). After defining WAC and WID terms and concepts and reviewing the literature on key developments of the WAC/WID movement, the authors recommend that key terms be defined more precisely and that multimodal learning be adopted more consistently to address varied learning styles. Noting the complexities of affirming student achievement, specifically when success is attributed without qualification to WAC/WID initiatives, the authors question evidence cited in support of WAC/WID goals and pedagogies. They also consider the monetary costs of WAC/WID initiatives.

Argues for extending writing programs to grade school and community groups. The authors say WAC has taken writing instruction out of mechanics-based classes, and moved it to the disciplines. In this model, community literacy suffers. The authors call for links between Composition and Education departments: shared classes, more TA’s from Education in Comp, and more grad students working in high schools. They support “literacy centers” which are located in universities but are resources for public school and community teachers as well. Here, teachers in the community could learn to make their classes interdisciplinary. And university students would be involved in these classes through their own service-learning classes.

Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum is an edited collection in which teachers and program heads throughout the United States present adaptable models of computer-supported communication using the pedagogies of writing for learning and writing with computers -- including science, math, history, philosophy, technical writing, accounting, literature, and marketing. Edited by Donna Reiss, Dickie Selfe, and Art Young (NCTE, 1998) Also available at http://bookstore.ncte.org/default.asp?id_product=3066

Robert Samuels examines the new role that Writing-Across-the-Curriculum (WAC) programs are playing in the rethinking of academic culture and discourse at contemporary universities.

The authors' first year of experience in the Writing Fellows Program they started suggested that crossing individual instructors' pedagogies was a more central part of the Fellows' work than crossing disciplines, as assignments in the courses that they fellowed in different fields involved similar critical, analytical, and interpretive tasks.

Waldo argues for a "discipline-based WAC," housed in the Writing Center and designed with all the disciplines in mind. English should be just one department, or language community, that WAC serves. He says each discipline needs to examine what it expects from writing. WAC programs should join in this discussion and learn from each discipline what it values, then help in program design. Waldo stresses respect for the goals of Biology, Music Theory, Economics, etc. On the other hand, he shows how disciplines can be confused about what they value about writing: sometimes, student writing does not prepare students for the professional writing they will encounter after school. He also calls for an end to assessment tests designed to judge writing from students in all the disciplines.