Back to Newsletter Home Page

WAC Newsletter
Number 10
Wright State University
September 1998

INSIDE:
Two Years of WAC at WSU

Writing in Air Force ROTC

Sample Score Sheet

Faculty Responses to Two Years of WAC
A Message from the WAC Coordinator
September 1998

Welcome to the beginning of another academic year and the beginning of the third year of Wright State's university-wide Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program. I'd like to begin this new year by sharing some of the results of a survey of faculty who have taught one or more writing intensive (WI) courses during the first two years of the program. The surveys, which were mailed to 255 faculty, consisted of two sections. The first part was made up of six questions with Likert scale response (for each question there were separate scales for GE classes and for WI classes in the major); the second contained five open-ended questions, along with a space for additional comments.

Replies came from all instructional ranks, ranging from full professor to graduate teaching assistant. The total number of sections of WI classes taught by each of these people over the past two years ranged from 1 to 12, with most respondents having taught 2-4 sections. Though the sample was varied, the return rate was only 11% (most people who work with surveys expect 10%), and it would be a mistake to draw conclusions about the WAC program on the basis of this survey alone. Thus, the following information is presented to invite discussion and ongoing assessment of the WAC program as it enters its third year.

Meeting the Goals of the WAC Program

The six questions that comprised the first section focused on the goals of the WAC program and asked for faculty perceptions of how well those goals were being met in GE classes and in the major. Four choices (significantly, somewhat, only slightly, not at all) were provided; in the mean scores that follow the questions, "significantly" is given a value of 4, "not at all" a value of 1.

(1) To what extent were you aware of the goals of the
WAC program when you taught your first WI course?

Mean responses:
3.64 GE
3.65 major

(2) To what extent did students seem to see a link between the
writing assignments and the learning objectives of your WI course?

Mean responses:
2.80 GE
3.25 major

(3) To what extent did the writing assignments
help students learn the course content?

Mean responses:
3.55 GE
3.45 major

(4) To what extent did the writing
assignments help foster critical thinking?

Mean responses:
3.45 GE
3.50 major

(5) To what extent did the writing assignments
help students improve their writing abilities?

Mean responses:
3.27 GE
3.16 major

(6) To what extent did the writing assignments
help stimulate class discussion?

Mean responses:
2.50 GE
2.85 major

Keeping in mind the limited sample and the impressionistic nature of the questions posed, the most we can say with anything approaching certainty is that 11% of the people who have taught WI courses are reasonably satisfied that the goals of the program are being met, though they might be a little less certain about WAC proponents' frequent claim that writing stimulates class discussion.

Still, certain patterns here suggest questions we need to be asking. To take a single example: there is comparatively little confidence that students in GE classes recognize a link between writing assignments and course objectives. Admittedly, the question calls for sheer speculation; however, the uncertainty on this point suggests the program as a whole (as well as individual instructors) might profitably emphasize the use of writing to learn (one of the central goals of WAC).

Faculty Comments on the WAC Program

The open-ended questions in the second half of the survey solicited faculty comments and suggestions in several areas--what they feel has succeeded, what needs to be changed, what would help them teach WI courses more effectively, and the like. Here, of course, the sheer number of responses is much less significant. Each instructor is the person best situated to assess his or her own experience in a WI class. And, for that matter, a good suggestion is a good suggestion whether it's made once or 255 times. There is not enough space to share all of them in this newsletter, but I'll include others in future issues. The following comments (and the boxed passages) have been selected to suggest something of the variety of responses. I hope they will also encourage discussion of the issues they raise.

Several respondents commented that the program was a success in sending students a positive message about the importance of writing. Others mentioned the coordination of the WAC and GE programs, along with the tie-in with the University Writing Center. One also noted improved test performance. Not everyone was convinced of the success of the program. According to one writer, "Students treat it as an additional, unnecessary requirement; and professors consider it a non-productive burden foisted on them by the administration," a task that is the rightful responsibility of the English Department.

Suggested changes to the program were equally varied. One writer would like to see the program goals modified to reflect "more of a 'writing to learn' focus and less of a 'learning to write' focus." Several people recommended doing away with the dual grade sheets (one for course grade, one for the WI portion of the course), thus making the writing more clearly an integral part of the course and course grade.

Several writers also recommended making the completion of English 101 and 102 a prerequisite for taking any WI course. (The current guidelines do not require that students complete these classes before taking a WI course in GE, but they are required to have done so before taking a WI course in the major; it is not clear, though, whether that requirement is always enforced.)

Another writer suggested that moving to a semester schedule would provide more time for students to "construct a reasonable draft of term papers for constructive, considered feedback before the final version." One respondent proposed implementing "a serious writing proficiency test" that must be passed before students are admitted to a major, and another made a similar recommendation that included reading proficiency as well. The most extreme suggestion was to eliminate WAC altogether and require three quarters of composition instead of two.

Another comment appears to make a similar suggestion, at least in terms of additional composition courses: "There needs to be more writing before the students get to the writing intensive courses in their major. The writing skills of the juniors and seniors in my classes are appalling."

In fact, concern about the connection of WAC and English composition appeared in several forms, many of them focused on the seeming lack of carryover from composition courses to other classes. "Most of the students I've had in WI courses show an incredible lack of knowledge, and even awareness, about proper documentation," wrote one respondent. "They all deny they were taught to document." Others are troubled by student apathy toward writing, noting that their students have not taken advantage of opportunities to revise and resubmit their work.

What Do We Do Next?

While it would be unsound to make sweeping policy changes for the WAC program on the basis of only these survey results, we can use them to identify areas we need to begin investigating. I hope that the sampling of comments included here will give us a starting point for examining the program in more depth, particularly now that we have two years' of experience to draw upon.

I particularly hope that the campus as a whole will be willing to work together to address some of the issues identified here. For example, it is clear we need to open a dialogue about the relation of first-year composition courses and WI classes--and twenty years' experience teaching college-level composition tells me that we need to include our students in that dialogue, too. Clearer assumptions and expectations on all sides should result.

Some of the suggestions that appeared in the survey have already been implemented on a limited scale. One respondent suggested WAC writing "clinics," offered one day a week as an ongoing part of large classes--a writing day, something like a review day. Last year, in collaboration with Scott Geisel of the University Writing Center, I visited sections of GE classes to make a brief presentation about WAC and discuss strategies for dealing with an upcoming writing assignment. If faculty are interested, we can work with them to develop workshops or materials for specific classes and assignments. The Writing Center regularly offers workshops on different documentation styles, and it might be possible to coordinate one of those workshops with a particular class. Because several people expressed concern over students' ability to read critically, one of the fall WAC workshops for faculty will focus on short writing assignments that may help direct students read more efficiently.

An important opportunity for university-wide involvement will occur this fall as faculty all across campus begin making plans to implement the recently approved reforms to our GE program. Because those modifications will affect the WAC program, we may be able to address some of the issues raised here. It's one way to help ensure that WAC truly is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you have suggestions or concerns, please let me know or make them known to members of the committee that soon will be appointed to implement the new GE program.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the WAC Committee for their advice in constructing the survey and Institutional Research (and particularly Barb Bullock) for their assistance in administering the survey and tabulating the results.

Top

Writing In Air Force ROTC
September 1998

During my two years as the instructor for the sophomore-level Aerospace Studies 200, I have assigned a three-page autobiography as a major writing assignment during the course. While most writing in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps focuses on practical applications, such as memorandums and a variety of other formats they will use as officers, this one is a creative writing assignment.

The intention of doing this assignment at this point in their education as an officer candidate is three-fold. First, it demands that students produce a very structured piece of writing with solid transitions and a unifying theme. I got through my undergraduate work "cum laude," but that was because I majored in visual arts! The Air Force, not SUNY New Paltz or the affluent high school I graduated from, taught me to write. In fact I've won writing awards as an Air Force public affairs officer. The key, as we all know, is get to work on drafts early, and edit, edit, edit! I do a great deal of editing and discussing with each student. With an average of 30 students--it's comparatively easy.

The second benefit is that the writers must stop and take stock of their lives. It really has had a profound impact on some of them, as you will see from their "self-assessment" responses.

Finally, the sophomore year of Aerospace Studies is a critical year in making the decision to commit to becoming an officer. Throughout their time in AFROTC, students meet each quarter with their instructor to talk about their progress in school and in ROTC. As the commander, I have a great deal of input into who will ultimately be commissioned from the program, and this autobiography helps me form a more multidimensional picture of each student. The insight I gain helps me gauge my counseling sessions and temper my expectations of their progress through the program.

The most important aspect of this writing assignment was the clear delineation of the writing criteria and the emphasis on structure. The grading sheet, which follows this article, shows a clear outline of instructor expectations--introduction with an overview, transitions, topic sentences, supporting information and a conclusion. The weight (point value) of each element of the composition can be adjusted--such as support carrying a greater portion of points if you were focusing on research--rather than my weighted emphasis on the introduction and effective transitions. The key, though, is to provide fair, objective grading criteria and clearly expressed expectations. Don't make this a mystery tour for the students. In this particular assignment, I was not interested in research, so their life story--or actually an aspect of it--became the vehicle to teach structure. The side benefit, however, was the personal insights gained by both the instructor and students.

The following statements are representative of students' comments about the value of the assignment.

-Adrienne R. Campbell

WRITING ASSIGNMENT SCORE SHEET AEROSPACE STUDIES 200

Top

This page last modified 10/21/98.
Send comments to Dr. Joe Law