As an academic, I feel myself pushed into fairly narrow categories—"you're
an English professor, damn it—start acting like one." "Aren't you the
computer guy?" "I thought you only did the comp courses." Over the past
several years, however, I've found myself taking a fairly broad perspective
in my teaching and learning activities, looking for connections across
various disciplines (not a bad strategy, I suppose, for an English professor
who does not have a graduate degree in literature) and, perhaps most
important, seeking colleagues who shared my interests in supporting the
teaching and learning of writing across disciplines.
When Donna suggested this title for our panel, I thought it was quite
appropriate. We've tended to think of WAC, in its most traditional guise, as
a sort of partnership (although not necessarily an equal one) between
faculty in two disciplines, usually English/composition and a "content"
discipline, such as electrical engineering or biology. As Donna and Martin
note in their opening statements, however, WAC can be much broader than
this. Beyond interactions between faculty from two departments, WAC can
involve interactions among students in diverse settings, among different
institutions, among disciplines themselves, and among seemingly unrelated
theoretical approaches.
As I've learned from my colleagues—and in particular from my colleagues on
this panel—I've become increasingly intrigued by the potential of
WAC/CAC/ECAC for transforming the ways in which our students learning.
(Okay, I know the "T" word has been overused, but in this case I believe
it's appropriate.) Sadly, this is a fairly slow transformation, one that has
been in the works since the early part of the 20th Century, when faculty
began writing about collaborations among English and engineering professors
on "the long paper." And it's a transformation that has moved forward—if
that's the right term—in fits and starts.
Most recently, some proponents of writing across the curriculum have seen
technology as an agent that might support this transformation. Yet, as
Charlie carefully points out in his opening statement, we should carefully
weigh our use of technology as an "enabling" force. Kenneth Burke tells us
that a way of seeing is a way of not seeing. Charlie suggests that
technology is both a way of supporting WAC/CAC efforts and a way of
undermining them. I'm curious about how we might explore Charlie's concerns
in light of what Donna and Martin have said about the transformative
potential of WAC/CAC/ECAC.
Mike
******************
Mike Palmquist
Professor of English
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Voice: 970 491 7253
Fax: 970 491 5601
Email: Mike.Palmquist@ColoState.edu
|