supporting scholarly exchange about communication across the curriculum
Content Area:
Communication Across the Curriculum
Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum
Writing to Learn vs. Writing in the Disciplines
Discipline:
Welcome to the WAC Clearinghouse Theses and Dissertations Page. The theses are displayed below. If you'd like us to add a new thesis or dissertation to our list, please contact Kevin Eric De Pew.
Currently, the present model of teacher-scholar preparation in graduate schools in English Studies fails to join theoretical and practical training as effectively as it should. Graduates often have unresolved tensions between theory and practice, seeing them as separate or dichotomous. They experience what Donald Schon calls gaps "between professional knowledge and the demands of real-world practice."
My dissertation addresses this problem by highlighting the significance of what I call the mobius loop of theory and practice,focusing on the importance of the Aristotelian notion of phronesis or
practical wisdom to the successful practitioner. I argue that the future of composition needs to be constructed on the foundations of those who do its work--teach writing--and who build and articulate knowledge based upon that work. Drawing from the history of rhetoric, I argue that the teaching of writing should be refigured as an "art" (techne) that engages the teacher in a reflection of those practices that constitute the theoretical frame of composition studies. Using the writings of Aristotle and the arguments of Joseph Dunne, a philosopher of Education, I illustrate that researching with teachers and collaborating with students enable the prospective teacher (and, in reality, any teacher) to combine techne and experience to achieve masterly practice. My research expands the concepts of teacher-researcher and reflective practitioner.
The heart of my dissertation is three qualitative research studies with teachers and students in settings where writing and the study of language practices are central. These include a classroom devoted to the teaching of the structure of American English, a variety of writing classrooms in which I focus on a group of students with devout religious beliefs, and an upper division business management class in organizational behavior. I discuss what I have learned not only from the researcher's perspective but also from the teacher's perspective. I provide a meta-analysis of the act of research when the lines among teacher, researcher, and students become blurred. In so doing, I also discuss the value of such blurring in terms of the practical advantages conferred upon the collaborators.
This study explored the writing strategies and behaviors demonstrated by four third-grade learners as they composed Across Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science. Writing episodes were examined in light of the influence of models upon the student writing product. It is the case that there are distinctive patterns Across learners, yet individual differences not representative of the group exist. Instructional models found in text provided by the classroom teacher, literature sources, the environment, and other students influenced student writing. These models were imitated by students both in format and actual imitation of text. The students were more likely to imitate format of literature sources and teacher models when composing in the area of Language Arts. In the subject areas of Social Studies and Science, the students more frequently imitated the text as it appeared in source documents. Students' writing processes consisted of three universal components: planning, drafting (or transcribing), and revision. These components appeared in a recursive nature. The students often planned what would be written as they wrote. This planning took form most frequently in planning self-talk, the verbal announcement or think- aloud process of deciding what to put on paper. The greatest percentage of student writing time was spent drafting, or putting words on paper without pausing to plan or revise. This drafting behavior consisted of students imitating format or actual text. The students used the existing text to derive a new text, but this text was generally not original, nor did it synthesize the information given from sources into new configurations. Within the drafting, students attended to spelling and mechanics a small portion of the time. Attention to revision occurred less frequently. The types of revision behaviors exhibited by students varied.
The single largest divide in academia is centered between humanistic and scientific disciplines. The separation of these two disciplinary ideologies stems from centuries of stereotypical assumptions about both modes of interpreting reality. for example Albert Levi confidently states In The Humanities Today that " (I) f those in the science and those in the humanities ... misunderstand one another, ... this is hardly surprising ... they think differently ... (and) speak two separate languages"(56). Thomas Kuhn argues that when universities teach science as a "linear," left-brain only process, they misrepresent how the practice of science actually works. One group of students particularly vulnerable to the effects of polarizing humanistic and scientific ways of knowing are medical students, since until the early 1980s, the majority of medical schools exclusively relied on the sciences to teach medical students how to be effective practitioners. In the last ten years, however, a group of scholars known as medical humanists have begun to work against medical students' narrowly focused schooling by exposing them to literature and writing, two rarely required activities in medical school. In targeting their efforts toward humanizing the field of medicine, medical humanists are filling a gap in academia since few current interdisciplinary programs link the science and the humanities. This dissertation is a qualitative ethnographic study of one medical humanities program located at the University of Missouri- Kansas City Medical School (UMKC). It centers on two questions: (1) In this medical humanities interdisciplinary environment, what instances are there when medical students exhibit thoughts/behavior/ideas not considered during other stages of their medical training? and (2) What instances are there when medical students exhibit traditional, academic or science-based behaviors in this non-traditional, humanities-based educational environment? In its concluding chapters, this study demonstrates that although medical students primarily utilized traditional science-based learning tools during this particular medical humanities experience (e.g., they recorded 'facts,' resisted abstract descriptions, and tuned-out 'irrelevant' (e.g., personal) stories), they did begin to conceptualize themselves as active participators in the world of medicine by recognizing that there is an interpretive level to doctor/patient interactions. In summary, because these medical students had "to read in the fullest sense," and learn how to " (tolerate) ambiguity" during this medical humanities experience, they had to begin realistically preparing for actual "doctor/patient encounters" (Trautmann 32).
A difference between Stanford Achievement Test scores achieved by eighth-grade students in science and social studies in Alabama gave rise to the question of whether science teachers were using different and more effective instructional practices than were social studies teachers, or whether they were using the same practices more effectively. Current research in language arts recommends the incorporation of writing in content areas Across the curriculum as a means for the students to learn content and for the teachers to evaluate students' mastery of content. This study focused on eighth-grade teachers to investigate their practices and beliefs regarding the use of writing in the content-areas of science and social studies, and then to compare the findings. The study surveyed all eighth-grade science and social studies in 147 public schools randomly selected Across the State of Alabama. of the 390 teachers in the selected schools, 190 returned the surveys. The instrument used Likert-type scales based either on frequency of use of given practices or degree of agreement with various belief statements. Responses were counted, percentages calculated, and contradictions or consistencies with the research review and between the two groups were noted. The data showed that a larger percentage of science teachers were implementing the recommended writing practices, assigning weekly opportunities to write for different purposes, including graded and non-graded work (logs, journals, essays, and reports). A larger percentage of science teachers also focused primarily on content in giving feedback, which also is recommended. Both groups strongly believed in the value of writing as a learning tool to help clarify content and sharpen critical thinking skills. Science teachers reported that assigning additional writing activities would not require changing their teaching practices, in contrast to social studies teachers, who reported that increased writing assignments would require them changing their teaching practices. Deterrents to using writing included: students' attitudes, lack of writing skills, insufficient time, curriculum demands, and the number of students. Motivational support for increased use of writing assignments was perceived by both groups from principals, fellow teachers, and school goals. Technical support from inservice was offered infrequently, and was seen as ineffective when offered. Both groups identified benefits from inservice that provided specific, content- related activities and opportunities for teachers to discuss successes and problem-solving strategies with associates.
This study investigated the reactions of American professors to the written prose of non-native speaking international students in their classes. The need for a clear understanding of the specific nature of the writing required in particular content areas has been recently stressed (Leki & Carson, 1994). These data are important for ESL curriculum designers to plan courses that will help these students to write coherent papers for their professors. The areas of the assignments that are especially significant are those the professors have difficulty following. The first case study in this research assessed the reactions of an ESL and freshman chemistry professor to the assignments of a Japanese native speaker. In the second case study, the same ESL professor and a professor teaching a course in urban development reacted to the written prose of a graduate student from Indonesia who was a native speaker of Malay. All the informants were interviewed throughout the data collection periods about the way these assignments were written and graded. In addition, the professors were asked to assess the students' papers and indicate the areas where, in their opinion, they had not expressed the concepts clearly. A model of discourse analysis that focused on the interactive, coherent, semantic, and syntactic aspects of text was developed and used to assess the way the professors had reacted to the assignments. The results indicate that while all the professors were primarily concerned with the content of the students' papers each reacted differently to the way the concepts were organized and expressed. The patterns of language use related specifically to the concerns of the respective content areas and the disciplinary context within which the assignment was set. It was with this interactive aspect of the texts that the students had most difficulty and to which the professors reacted most consistently. In both the freshman chemistry and the urban planning courses, neither student was given direct help with the linguistic requirements of the assignments. The results of the study have important implications for the role of the ESL writing classes in relation to the demands of the content areas.
The purpose of this paper is to explore what happens when cooperating teachers use dialogue journals with student teachers Across the disciplines. The study consists of three case studies with data gathered from questionnaires, interviews, and the actual dialogue journals. The disciplines of math, language arts, and special education are represented. Findings are based on Leslee Reed's journal effectiveness values in addition to the previously mentioned data. Dialogue journals may evolve independently within each discipline. Teacher research/teacher renewal and writing Across the curriculum are other issues discussed in this paper.
Writing-Across-the-curriculum programs, which have focused chiefly on the differences that characterize writing in the various university disciplines, have encouraged faculty members and students to believe that while academicians function together within an academy and share some common ground, each discipline and its discourse is quite different from the other. This study argues that defining academic discourse communities principally by their disciplinary differences may obscure commonalities Across disciplines that also may be important. It re-examines the primary WAC framework of discipline and proposes a second framework of pedagogy, asserting that the intersections of discipline and pedagogy are more useful than is either alone in explaining the discourse communities in which faculty members ask their students to write. As it reports an ethnographic study of two academic disciplines, accounting/finance and anthropology, the study probes two questions: (1) How do faculty members map and sustain the discourse communities in which their students must write, and (2) how may WAC projects help faculty members and students understand and describe what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how they might do it more successfully? It describes data gathered through interviews with faculty members, observations of classes, and reviews of course syllabi and of student writing. The interpretation of these data, which reveals similarities and differences that both observe and cross disciplinary lines, supports the addition of the framework of pedagogy to WAC considerations. It demonstrates that the inquiry into pedagogy can explain how faculty members Theorize their roles, the roles of their students, and the nature of the curriculum. The study concludes by generalizing its work with WAC boundaries to a larger conversation about creating and using categories. It proposes that engaging the dualisms and contradictions found in the margins leads to a more fluid vision of discourse and other communities while it models productive boundary blurring for faculty members and students.
This study examined the curricular practices of faculty members teaching writing Across the curriculum (WAC) courses or writing-credit courses at the University of South Alabama (USA) in Mobile, Alabama. The courses were a part of the College of Arts and Sciences, College of Business, College of Education, College of Engineering, School of Continuing Education and Special Programs, College of Allied Health Professions, College of Medicine, and Division of Computer and Information Sciences. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which the faculty members who attended the WAC workshop at USA found the activities taught effectively illustrated and to determine if faculty used the practices in their courses. Based on the analyses of data provided by questionnaires, course syllabi collected from the faculty, and interviews with subject-area teachers, the study concluded that the emphasis in the courses studied appeared to be on the quantity of writing. The data indicated that some of these faculty members used process writing.
This study investigated the nature and frequency of writing tasks undertaken by students in colleges and universities granting bachelor's degrees in institutions accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. A sample of seventy-five institutions was drawn, and surveys were mailed to 'good' instructors in six major subjects areas--biology, economics, foreign language, freshman writing, history, and mathematics. The response rate of the survey was 309/450 or 69.0% with each of the six subject areas recording response rates exceeding 60.0%. Questions on the survey were grouped into categories that related to the study's ten research questions: (1) class and instructor characteristics, (2) writing and related activities, (3) reasons for writing, (4) longer writing assignments, (5) intellectual uses of writing, (6) teaching techniques, (7) audiences for student writing, (8) responses to student writing, (9) length of writing assignments, (10) time allowed for writing assignments. The survey also included a section in which respondents answered questions and expressed their views on student writing. Overall, results indicated that writing occurs Across subject areas in colleges, most frequently in the forms of note-taking, discursive writing of a paragraph or longer, and short-answer responses. College instructors stress application of subject area concepts and subject area information more than development of writing skills and personal experience. Informational uses of writing dominate student writing with personal and imaginative uses occurring infrequently. Prewriting, writing and revising, and postwriting techniques are used only sparingly in content classes. College instructors' responses are related to students' thinking processes, accuracy of conclusions, and organization. Subject area instructors accept joint responsibility with freshman writing instructors for teaching students to write, and they feel adequately prepared to do it. Most college instructors have not heard of the writing process movement, but most have heard of the writing Across the curriculum movement. Additional conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made. Results are related to work done by Albert Kitzhaber and Arthur Applebee. Appendices contain information on the Kitzhaber Study, the North Central Association, a population list, a sample list, the survey questionnaire, sample follow-up letters, and a sample codebook. Twenty tables and nineteen figures are included in the text.
This study proposes a model to compare cohesion and information management in samples of professional writing in three disciplines (counseling psychology, biology, and history). When tested with the chi-square procedure, the comparisons revealed significant differences in the cohesion and information management systems of the three sample passages (criterion: p $
This study asks questions about the nature of writing processes in classrooms. More specifically, how do students go into a classroom setting and figure out what the writing requirements are in that discipline and for that teacher, and how do they go about producing it? As students go from one classroom to another, they are presented with new speech situations, and they must determine what constitutes appropriate ways of speaking and writing in each new territory. How do they learn the rules for successful written communication in a particular classroom, rules which include many conventions and presuppositions that are not explicitly articulated? In order to answer these questions this study examines the writing experiences of three Loyola College students during their freshman, sophomore, and junior years. It focuses primarily on one of these students as he wrote in three consecutive semesters for Freshman Composition and his sophomore courses, Introduction to Poetry and Cell Biology. Follow-up data was collected during the fall of his junior year. Three research methods were combined in order to get as full a picture as possible of this student writer's experiences in the various classroom contexts. These research methods are ethnographic observation and interviews, composing-aloud protocols, and text analysis. Conclusions are drawn from the data about how this Loyola student figured out what constituted acceptable writing in each classroom and how he worked to produce it. Also presented are conclusions about what enhanced or denied his success in communicating competently in unfamiliar academic territories. Affecting his success were unarticulated social aspects of classroom contexts for writing as well as explicitly stated requirements and instructions. Conclusions are also drawn from the data about how this student's writing experiences in the various contexts related to each other, particularly how Freshman Composition related to his sophomore academic writing experiences. Implications from the data and conclusions are suggested (1) for students' writing development, (2) for the teaching of writing, and (3) for liberal arts education in general.
The decline of basic literacy in community college students has resulted in serious questions about the full-time faculty's role in providing writing practice Across the curriculum. The purpose of this study is to describe the practices and values of the full-time faculty, and to describe their views about the barriers and incentives to writing requirements. The data were gathered by two methods. First, surveys of 304 full-time faculty were gathered from four California community colleges; secondly, personal interviews were conducted with a random sample of 20 of the survey respondents. The major findings of the study focus upon how much and what kinds of writing activities were required by full-time faculty, in what areas or departments these activities occurred, what influences were in the instructors' background, and what was administrative support for these activities. In some data analyses, Composition and/or English departments were omitted to avoid distortion of results. About one third of the sample assigned formal papers; about two thirds assigned informal papers. There was a significant relationship between department orientation and formal and informal papers. Students' career goals and teaching experience were the primary influence on the methods instructors used to evaluate mastery. There was a significant relationship between the instructors' writing confidence, their writing practice and writing required. Where administrative support or college policy existed, faculty were more involved with using writing. Major barriers to writing were student resistance, discomfort with evaluating writing, and competing content or skills. Class size was not the barrier to writing that might be expected. As the literature suggests, there was limited appreciation of the importance of writing as a learning tool and of shared responsibility for providing writing practice. Writing proficiency appears to be a luxury that competes with other priorities.
Theses and dissertation abstracts and citation information are provided courtesy of UMI Company, except as noted in abstracts. Copyright © for UMI materials 1998-2009 UMI Company, A Bell & Howell Company. All rights reserved. To order a dissertation or thesis, visit http://wwwlib.umi.com/dxweb/gateway.
Copyright © 1997-2009 Colorado State University and/or this site's authors, developers, and contributors. Some material displayed on this site is used with permission.