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.
Recent reports in the literature have criticized many teachers for being ill-prepared to effectively teach students to read and write. Improving the quality of teacher preparation for classroom reading and writing instruction, therefore, is of major importance to educators and teacher education programs Across the country. Some scholars have hypothesized teachers must be confident, avid readers and writers to be effective teachers of reading and writing. The purpose of this study was to explore this hypothesis.
This was a qualitative sub-study of a larger five-year research project conducted by the Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA), based at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Informants were twenty-one fourth grade teachers from five states (CA, NH, NJ, NY, TX), nominated by their principals and/or language arts supervisors as effective reading and writing instructors. Interviews were the primary data source although observational field notes were also included. Three questions guided this study. First, how did teachers describe themselves as readers and writers? Two, how did teachers describe the relationship between their reading and writing and their teaching of reading and writing. Third, how did observational field notes characterize this relationship, if at all?
Findings indicated that most of these effective teachers considered themselves avid, confident readers, and enjoyed reading for recreational purposes. In contrast, most of these teachers described themselves as practical/not recreational writers, although they felt they could write competently when required. Teachers' reading and writing practices reportedly played a nominal role in their reading and writing instruction; however, descriptions were highly individualized. Most teachers believed that other factors (i.e., students' interests and needs; state, district, and teacher's curriculum goals) were more influential than their reading and writing practices on their personal and professional reading and writing instruction Field note data provided little or no insight into this relationship.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated little support for the hypothesis assuming that teachers' reading and writing must influence their reading and writing instruction, teachers should be encouraged to reflect on the nature and possibilities of this relationship in their lives as teachers and individuals.
These qualitative case studies investigated the backgrounds, attitudes, and practices of five college professors, all in disciplines other than English, who used writing in their teaching.
Analysis of transcripts of individual and focus group interviews, of field notes of classroom observations, and of documents collected from the professors and their students discovered themes and concepts embedded in the various types of data. Data was then interpreted by displaying it as a conceptually clustered matrix and as reassembled but unreduced extracts of text.
Results were presented as narratives describing each professors course, writing assignments, classroom, students, literacy experiences, and reactions to the study five years after the first data was collected. Comparison of the five professors showed that all of the professors had positive early reading experiences and were active readers; that the role of their teachers in developing the professors' self-confidence as writers was by no means clear; that there were interesting disjunctures between what the professors said and what they did regarding assigning and evaluating writing assignments; that none of the professors had discovered on their own the “best practices” described in WAC literature; and that two of the professors appeared to be socialized writers while the other three appeared to be postsocialized writers with respect to the conventions of their various discourse communities.
This study indicates the need for further research into the relationships between professors' writing experiences and self-confidence as writers and their commitment to and practices in using writing in their teaching. It also confirms the need for formal WAC programs if writing is to be used most effectively in colleges and universities.
Writing-to-learn strategies have been well documented in the promotion of student learning (Poirrier, 1997c). Less is known about how teachers come to use these strategies in every day instruction. This study is a description of the experiences of one science teacher at a large suburban high school who shared writing-to-learn strategies with his department to promote the use of these strategies in daily instruction of his colleagues. The strategies involved (1) improving reading comprehension using paraphrasing, (2) activating prior knowledge using generic questions: who, what, where, when, why, & how, and (3) writing before and after other classroom activities to activate prior knowledge and then better integrate new information. The strategies were shared during informal meetings at lunch. Participation was voluntary. of the eighteen faculty members, four chose to implement the strategies on a longer-term basis. Follow-up analysis in subsequent years, showed that the strategies were still in use and that the colleagues who used the strategies had passed them on to newly inducted members of the department. Results were discussed with regards to how teachers acquire or decline the incorporation of new teaching ideas in the normal course of their work in collegial settings.
The purpose of this naturalistic study was to better understand the experiences of interns as they engaged in literacy instruction during, the second semester of the year-long internship. Through increased understanding about how interns' experience teaching literacy during the year-long field experience those in positions of educating new teachers may gain insight into how to structure teacher education in literacy in ways that may be more meaningful and relevant. Qualitative methods of data collection included classroom observations, interviews, and document examination. Data were collected from three elementary school interns over a five month period which spanned the Spring semester of their internship year. One interns was teaching first grade, two interns were teaching fourth grade. Qualitative analysis of the data was used to answer the following research questions: (1) What does literacy mean to interns? (2) How do interns construct their perceptions of literacy? (3) What does literacy instruction mean to interns? (4) How do interns experience literacy instruction in the classroom context? (5) How do interns construct their perceptions of literacy instruction? Findings from data analysis revealed the following similarities Across interns: (1) Literacy means reading and writing in ways that communicate meaning for enjoyment, for learning, and to accomplish one's goals in life. (2) Interns construct their perceptions of literacy in literate environments, with literate role models, and expectations for literate behavior. (3) By the end of the internship year, interns articulated clearly that literacy instruction meant the teaching of reading and writing as integrated processes, in both student-directed and teacher-directed-ways. (4) Interns experienced literary instruction as the application of social strategies that enabled them to assert autonomy in stressful situations. Interns used conformity, compromise, and change to actively adapt to perceived contextual constraints. (5) Interns constructed their perceptions of literacy instruction through school biographies, teacher education course work, field experiences, and professional development activities. Implications for teacher education in literary were based on the findings that interns saw themselves as learners throughout the internship experience. Interns completed the year-long internship with the perception that they were still learning to teach literacy.
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.
Much of teachers' resistance to integrating writing instruction in their classroom comes from their poor perceptions of themselves as writers, and uncertainty about how to teach and foster writing. The present study was conducted to discover how future teachers viewed themselves as writers and writing teachers and how these identities were being addressed in teacher education programs. Two hundred twenty-six student teachers responded to a questionnaire designed to measure both writing apprehension and beliefs about the role and responsibility of all teachers in teaching writing. In addition, 60 teacher education students responded in journal form to questions about themselves as writers. These responses were analyzed for recurring patterns and themes. Finally, faculty from a large teacher education program were asked to respond to questions related to how and to what extent the identity of the teacher as a writer and a teacher of writing was treated in their respective courses and programs. State guidelines for teacher education, along with course outlines, were also reviewed. Results revealed that future teachers' feelings about writing are heavily influenced by the nature of the writing task and whether or not the writing is being evaluated. In addition, most future teachers desire more writing instruction than what they receive. Regarding teaching writing, future teachers believe in the importance of writing Across the curriculum and teaching writing as a process, but do not express a desire to teach writing. Specifically, they lack confidence in evaluating the writing of others. It was also discovered that the identity of the teacher as a writer and teacher of writing is addressed minimally in teacher preparation programs. Recommendations for improvement of teacher education in addressing these important issues include allowing for more student choice in writing assignments, using journals extensively as tools for expression and reflection, reducing writing apprehension through process-oriented approaches, building more writing instruction and training in teaching writing into the teacher education program, addressing the identity of the teacher as a writer earlier in the preparation program, and providing more training for teacher educators interested in developing the writing attitudes and abilities of their students.
This study describes a cross-disciplinary study in Writing Across the Disciplines (WAC) at the University of South Carolina Aiken (USCA). As a composition specialist within the larger academic community, I reflect on assumptions made about writing both within and beyond the composition sequence by exploring practices, processes, and personalities within USCA's academic disciplines and schools. After reviewing WAC scholarship, I use surveys, assignment reviews, and interviews to analyze disciplinary assumptions about "writing-to- learn." I explore disciplinary categories and characteristics that have been previously established by WAC scholars. With participants, I examine explicit and implicit purposes and processes that are unique to disciplines. I also explore commonalties we share as teachers or past students of writing, as well as contradictions with our actual practices. I also explore the relationships between writing backgrounds of my participants. Definite patterns--purposes and uses of language to describe writing--can be associated with the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, particularly evident with upper-level classes. Creativity and discovery of new knowledge are most valued when students are being acculturated to a discipline. Our disciplinary expectations are more variable for freshmen. Generally, instructors' frustrations with freshmen's lack of critical abilities lead instructors to rely on structural approaches while presenting foundational knowledge which instructors perceive as fixed and transmittable. Pedagogical patterns are also less predictable even within disciplines. My study suggests that teaching patterns are more associated with personal backgrounds than disciplinary purposes and concludes that exploring personal backgrounds may be just as significant as determining disciplinary practices and processes. Exploring instructors' expectations for students, and their willingness or resistance to changing instructional methods, also leads me to question whether WAC is better represented as a tool for faculty development or as a reformatory initiative for student learning. As tool or initiative, WAC's impact remains questionable until fully assessed through future research studies. Assessment must be confronted as a major issue for WAC.
The purpose of this developmental dissertation was to create an undergraduate, college-level course in teaching problem-solving through writing, to provide mathematics pre-service secondary school teachers with the knowledge and strategies that will better prepare them to respond appropriately to the challenges of the contemporary mathematics classroom at the high school level. Mathematics education in the United States is weak in preparing teachers to teach problem-solving. Consequently students in the United States are behind in problem-solving when compared with students in other countries. Writing is a viable method for teaching the mathematical skill of problem-solving. Using writing to teach other subjects is called "Writing to Learn." Writing to Learn sets the stage for "Language Across the Curriculum" as a source of innovative techniques in teaching mathematics in conjunction with other disciplines. Many teachers are aware of writing as a catalyst for learning: however they lack the staff development training needed to successfully implement the process at the high school level. Teacher training is necessary for the implementation of Writing to Learn in the mathematics classroom. An undergraduate-level course in problem-solving through writing was developed, which is responsive to the recommendations of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1991) Standards for Teaching Mathematics and the Mathematical Association of America's report (Leitzel, 1991) which includes recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of mathematics. The goal of the course was to improve the teaching and learning of problem-solving in the mathematics classroom through the use of writing strategies. The lessons centered around method objectives and content objectives in behavioral form. The unique features of the course included: (1) the use of writing strategies such as collaborative learning, peer editing, presentations, projects, and journal writing to teach problem-solving in the mathematics classroom; (2) field experiences to observe other teachers; and (3) the use of the writing process in problem-solving. There are no "sure" methodologies for teaching problem- solving. However, it is evident that the methods now being used are not working. Thus, fresh approaches to problem-solving such as the use of writing strategies which emphasize thinking through problems are welcomed changes in the teaching of problem-solving. The effectiveness of this course could revolutionize the way problem-solving is taught throughout the United States.
The purpose of this research is to survey, analyze and evaluate the descriptions, Theoretical foundations, pedagogical applications, and research and evaluation techniques of writing-Across-the-curriculum programs. The methodology used is a critical bibliographic survey. The findings suggest that there are three major distinct Theoretical approaches to writing-Across-the-curriculum, as formulated by Elaine Maimon, Toby Fulwiler and Art Young, and Charles Bazerman, each with its own pedagogy. Maimon's Approach concentrates on a draft, edit, rewrite "process" Approach to a discipline specific "product." Faculty Across disciplines participate through discussions to develop writing appropriate assignments. Fulwiler and Young consider "process" as the psychological journey from "expressive" to "transactional" writing, and call for "expressive" journal writing in every discipline. Faculty in other disciplines participate by assigning personal writing exercises. Bazerman, using a social constructionist Approach, sees specific types of writing such as paraphrasing, summarizing, arguing and evaluating, as stages in teaching composition students how to participate in the "conversation" of the discipline. The study also demonstrates how administrators view the lack of funds and dubious status as the primary obstacles to advancement of WAC programs, rather than any internal inconsistencies or lack recognition of a variety of Theories and pedagogies. The study concludes that non-specialist faculty and administrators are confused and unaware of approaches other than that suggested by a particular expert or text. Unsuccessful attempts at implementation are interpreted as the failure of WAC generally, rather than as simply the unsuitability of a particular Approach. Furthermore, research has not focused on the relationship between specific types of learning and specific types of writing, but rather on a search for a "new" rhetoric. These findings suggest that Kinneavy's Theory of discourse offers a framework to explore rhetorical variations Across disciplines since it recognizes different aims of writing within disciplines. The method of organization proposed herein offers a means of explaining the variety of approaches available to administrators. "A" program may consist of a combination of approaches since the study also concludes that different approaches are appropriate to different disciplines, and to different courses within disciplines.
The Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) literature was surveyed to determine the most widely supported recommended practices. Forty-one Core WAC Recommended Practices were identified as guidance for content area professors' attempts to help students write more proficiently. A questionnaire was constructed and administered to professors at one of Ontario's largest community colleges to determine how closely the professors of specialist subjects were adhering to those recommendations from the professional literature. of 41 recommendations made by experts in WAC, faculty were commonly practicing fewer than half. of the independent variables (length of teaching career, extent of education, gender, and discipline area), only the discipline area substantially influenced the professors' choice of writing supportive practices: English professors teaching content area courses (literature), practice more of the WAC recommended practices.
Scholars in rhetoric and composition have heralded a new way of thinking about writing, referring to the change as a paradigm shift (Hairston, Young) or naming the new direction a 'social turn' in rhetoric and composition (Bizzell, Bruffee). Within the writing classroom, this emphasis on the social has encouraged pervasive use of three practices: use of personal experience in writing; contextualization of student writing; and collaborative learning. Although all three practices fall under the larger 'social' rubric, practitioners draw warrants from numerous Theoretical constructs which often represent very different or even opposing philosophies. This study attempts to gain greater understanding of the social movement in rhetoric and composition by examining the most influential groups within the movement--those who draw warrants from feminism, Marxism, and social constructionism. The study points to inconsistencies and overlap among Theoretical groups and highlights the intricate nature of practices that are often referred to and used in manners that belie their complexity. In using the term 'personal experience writing,' scholars have conflated the autobiographical and intimate with personal experience that represents a broader, more general daily experience, creating unexpected problems in the composition classroom. Teaching writing in context is defined differently by different Theoretical groups; at the same time, early expectations for such 'teaching in context' movements as writing Across the curriculum are largely ignored today. And claims for collaborative learning often do not play out as expected, partly because efforts to relinquish authority to students and to 'force' students to cooperate create other problems. There are consistencies Across Theoretical groups, but different ideas about how best to serve students places a very different emphasis on most social practices. This examination points to the complicated relationship between Theory and practice and to the need for classroom teachers to understand the Theoretical underpinnings of their methodology.
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 examined the effect taking two literature courses as part of the Gordon Rule Requirement has on CLAST essay and writing subtest scores. Additionally, the question of amount of feedback given by the faculty to students via their written assignments was addressed through a survey designed by this researcher. A student survey was also designed and administered in order to address the issue of self-selection into certain courses. Transcripts from CLAST takers at Broward Community College, Broward County, Florida, from 4 administrations of CLAST were studied (March, June, October, 1990, and February, 1991). Students were divided into two groups: those who had taken two literature courses and those who had not, and a random sample of 150 from each group was drawn. This group was then divided based on college prep experience. The instructor survey was administered to all faculty who teach writing credit courses, and the student survey administered to a random selection of students. Based on anova, multiple regression, and discriminant analysis, results are as follows: (1) Students who took two literature courses scored significantly higher on both the essay and writing subtests of CLAST, but students ultimately passed at higher rates only for the writing portion. (2) On the writing subtest, as a predictor of higher scores, group membership does not seem to be a reliable factor; however, group membership does aid in separating those who passed from those who failed. (3) On the essay subtest, group membership is a significant predictor of higher essay scores; however, its use in separating groups on the basis of ultimately passing or failing does not appear to be significant. Based on these results, recommendations include that students should be urged to take more literature courses as part of their writing credits. By virtue of the fact that English teachers assign more frequent writing assignments throughout the term, they are therefore naturally giving more feedback to students. Non-English faculty should participate in writing Across the curriculum workshops so that they are made aware of the recent research and methodology related to teaching writing classes.
Potentially, the most important response to widespread criticism about the quality of writing and writing instruction is Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC). WAC can mean a total immersion in writing, horizontally in all departments and vertically at all grade levels. It can encompass current writing Theory, but only if teachers understand such Theory and can apply it. WAC Theory must be incorporated into the entire process of professional preparation. WAC philosophy believes that (a) writing can be learned and should be taught, (b) writing is a way to clarify thought, (c) writing is a way to learn, and (d) writing is a complex, individualized process. This understanding is required to teach in a successful WAC program. The literature offers little evidence that schools of education feel a responsibility to emphasize writing and writing instruction at the preservice level. Therefore, a study was initiated to survey the eight Florida schools of education that are members of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for the purpose of determining practices and perceptions regarding WAC. This descriptive research called for two survey questionnaires, which invited responses from 8 administrators and 250 secondary education students and tested 11 hypotheses. These hypotheses related to required courses for writing and writing instruction, student understanding of WAC Theory, student perception of WAC status, level of student confidence to write and use writing, student willingness to become writing teachers, and student perception of the importance of writing. The conclusions indicate that WAC is not a well-known, well-used, or well-respected term: a majority (59%) had never heard the phrase before; a majority (63%) do not know writing-to-learn strategies; a majority (60%) do not support WAC programs. Only 6% feel WAC is an important focus in their schools of education. The remainder of the study recommends a required preservice course in WAC for all future teachers and suggests some components that course should contain.
Proponents of writing Across the curriculum, or more specifically, 'writing to learn,' claim that it can improve student learning, can increase involvement with the content and the class, and improve the student teacher relationship. However, most of these claims are from a teacher's point of view. Little specific attention has been paid to the response of students to writing to learn or to the effect of a teacher's attitude toward and implementation of writing to learn on his or her students' response. To research these two problems, I observed six college classes, covering a wide range of content and levels as the teachers used writing to learn with their students. I surveyed the students in the classes three times during a semester and interviewed each faculty member and several students from each class several times on their opinions and reactions to writing to learn. Contrary to the cautions in some of the literature, students began the semester confident that writing to learn would help them learn, and most maintained that attitude regardless of their teacher's attitude. However, the way that a teacher implemented writing to learn could effect student response. Clear, purposeful assignments met with the greatest approval; classes in which assignments were unclear, overwhelming, or not responded to did not see as much worth in writing to learn.
The purpose of this investigation was to assess the effectiveness of staff development in the form of workshops, which presented writing Across the curriculum Theory and practice, upon the writing apprehension level and attitudes toward writing of secondary school teachers. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest, non-equivalent control group design was the procedure utilized in this study. The Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test and the National Council of English Opinionnaire were administered as a pretest to two groups of 15 teachers at a rural high school in North Carolina in order to test two null hypotheses dealing with teacher writing apprehension and attitudes toward writing. After one group was exposed to writing Across the curriculum Theory and practice through a series of 10 workshops, both groups were again administered the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test and the NCTE Opinionnaire. An analysis of covariance was used to analyze the pretest aand posttest scores, using the pretest as a covariate. The analysis of data allowed for the rejection of the hypothesis dealing with writing apprehension. The experimental group scored significantly higher than did the control group. The other hypothesis dealing with teacher attitudes toward writing was rejected as a result of a significant statistical difference in three out of four parts of the NCTE Opinionnaire. Thus, writing Across the curriculum Theory and practice, presented in the form of workshops, appears to be an effective staff development measure in reducing teaching writing apprehension and in influencing three areas of teacher attitudes. The lessened writing apprehension and altered attitudes perhaps will allow these teachers to be more receptive to their own writing and to that of their students.
A Faculty Orientation and Design for Writing Across the Curriculum is a case study of the work done to introduce the concept of writing Across the curriculum at an urban community college. Emphasizing the related processes of learning, thinking, and writing, the researcher describes private interviews and analyzes transcriptions of small group meetings designed to discuss ways to encourage increased quantity and improved quality of writing in vocational and university-parallel courses on the campus. The focus of the study is the transcription of the faculty meetings where teachers reveal their methodologies and educational philosophies as they discuss ways to provide increased writing opportunities to large classes of open-door students. The culmination of the orientation project is a faculty booklet of ways to increase writing. The researcher concludes that although a writing 'program' is not in place as a result of the year's work, essential groundwork for such a program is laid.
A Faculty Orientation and Design for Writing Across the Curriculum is a case study of the work done to introduce the concept of writing Across the curriculum at an urban community college. Emphasizing the related processes of learning, thinking, and writing, the researcher describes private interviews and analyzes transcriptions of small group meetings designed to discuss ways to encourage increased quantity and improved quality of writing in vocational and university-parallel courses on the campus. The focus of the study is the transcription of the faculty meetings where teachers reveal their methodologies and educational philosophies as they discuss ways to provide increased writing opportunities to large classes of open-door students. The culmination of the orientation project is a faculty booklet of ways to increase writing. The researcher concludes that although a writing 'program' is not in place as a result of the year's work, essential groundwork for such a program is laid.
This study provides a plan to implement writing Across the curriculum (WAC) at New Hampshire College (NHC), a 4-year business school. The study reviews current Theories relating to the writing process and to WAC and examines several successful models, including staff development and classroom strategies. Those components necessary to successfully implement a WAC program are noted, and criteria are set for the NHC model. A profile of New Hampshire College examines the environment, the student body, the faculty, the governance, administrative, academic, and financial structures, and the present writing program, noting those resources and deterrents that currently exist to support or to deter the implementation of WAC. The NHC model describes the administrative structure, develops faculty training in all disciplines, introduces writing-to-learn in the core courses in freshman and sophomore years and develops writing intensive courses in all majors in junior and senior years. Peer assistance includes writing tutoring through the Learning Center and classroom assistants in those courses throughout the curriculum requiring writing. The study notes ways to monitor and to evaluate success of WAC at NHC.
'Writing Across the curriculum' was defined as a systematic attempt to introduce students to a wider variety of the aims of discourse, a variety which can invite them to look at new subjects from different perspectives. In addition, the researcher hypothesized that one of the roles of a teacher introducing writing into a content area is to engage students in productive writing experiences via clear and purposeful writing assignments. The study that followed, which described a decentralized university-wide writing requirement, was based on attitudes and practices of university instructors teaching writing as a substantial component of courses in the content areas at The University of Texas at Austin. Research methods included a questionnaire survey and content analyses of instructors' syllabi, writing assignments, students' writing samples, and teachers' comments on student writing. Thirty-five faculty members from 21 departments of nine of the ten colleges and schools offering 'substantial writing component' courses in the fall of 1986 participated after an initial stratified random selection of the sample; the sample was differentiated by degree of preparation for teaching writing. Both the survey and the content analyses were described statistically. Syllabi were examined for references to writing and the integration of writing assignments Across the semester. Assignments were analyzed for explicit and implicit content cues categorized under four dimensions: rhetorical, instructional, cognitive, and general (i.e.) nature and language of the assignment). Analysis of writing samples tied the importance of assignment dimensions to instructors' evaluations. Comments analysis revealed the frequency of comments by type (rhetorical, instructional, cognitive, and general assignment specifications). The researcher concluded that there was a wide interpretation of the writing requirement. However, writing was found to be used as a method of learning even by instructors who had not been trained in writing Across the curriculum. Faculty were more likely to share attitudes but disagree on instructional strategies. Assignment analysis revealed, in part, a range of specific tasks; discourse aims were generally referential. The researcher cited lack of consistent faculty development and decentralized administration as reasons for the wide interpretation. Implications for faculty development in writing Across the curriculum were noted.
This study explicates the attitudes and practices toward student writing of a group of eight faculty members, each representing a different liberal arts discipline and each using writing extensively in undergraduate courses. Their attitudes and practices are related to eight major assumptions of the writing Across the curriculum movement as derived from a review of the literature. These eight faculty informants were interviewed an average of three times over the course of an entire semester. In addition, their classroom activities related to student writing were periodically observed and course documents (syllabi, handouts, examinations, and graded student papers) were analyzed. Several common themes emerged from analysis of the interview transcripts, observation notes, and documents. These teachers felt that writing is the responsibility of faculty in all disciplines and that writing is a tool for thinking and learning as well as a necessary communication skill. There was a wide diversity in the types of writing they assigned, in the real or assumed audiences, and in the pedagogical purposes their assignments served. Virtually all assigned writing was in the transactional mode. Half were unwilling to devote significant class time to writing-related activities, despite the importance their comments gave to student writing. None felt their efforts to encourage student writing were recognized by their colleagues or rewarded or supported by the University. Nor did they feel that other faculty shared their commitment to good teaching and student writing. Most felt that freshman writing classes need to be more concerned with preparing students to write within the specific conventions of different disciplines, and called for greater cooperation between writing teachers and content-area teachers. They also felt that the administration must make a strong commitment to student writing and to rewarding good teaching if the current situation is to change. Finally, most felt that participating in the study itself was beneficial to them, and several reported making substantive changes in their practices as a result of their dialogues with the researcher.
This is a case study of educational problem solving which subsumes two closely related problems--one educational, the other research. (1) The educational problem: how can faculty work together to improve the writing and learning of all students at the university? (2) The research problem: what processes were used in solving the educational problem? To what extent were they effective? What can we learn from analysis of these processes about effecting change among a university faculty? Solution to the educational problem was sought through faculty workshops, which were perceived by the researcher as the best means for gaining collegial collaboration--the sine qua non of writing Across the curriculum programs. Two principal Theories underlay all workshop and related activities: (1) a cognitive Theory of writing, i.e., a Theory of writing as a mode of learning, and (2) a process Theory of educational change, in this case, a Theory based on social interaction in a five-stage model of exploration, strategic planning, initiation, implementation, and incorporation. Solution to the research problem was sought through methodological processes of observation, monitoring, assessing, evaluating, and reflective analysis. Data were gathered from surveys, interviews, letters, memoranda, researcher's log, etc. Based on data analysis, the study reports changes in faculty attitudes towards writing as a mode of learning and changes in four important areas of instructional practice: (1) course requirements, (2) writing assignments, (3) classroom strategies, and (4) responses to papers. These curricular, pedagogical, and attitudinal changes are interpreted as positive signs of movement towards institutionalization of a writing Across the curriculum program.
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.