Dan DeStephen's Communication 453, Communication and Conflict, offers students a survey of conflict theory. This writing intensive course in the major uses writing to assist students in meeting their individual learning goals and to foster critical thinking skills in the class of mostly seniors.

The course addresses various elements of conflict theory, which can be daunting for some students. DeStephen incorporates writing assignments to help students think about the theory. He notes: "It's very easy to take the theory the one step further and apply it to situations that students in the class have already been in. The writing assignments, then, are intended to serve as the link between the practical experiences of the students and the theory of the course."

In this "learning-centered course," where students make choices to suit their interests and experiences, DeStephen offers "a range of assignments that the students can then tailor to what it is they think would be the best way for them to make the connection between the theory and the practice." For example, students can opt to keep a journal as part of their individual project grade. DeStephen monitors students' writing to insure that they understand the journal's role in the course. "Rather than a journal on 'here's how my life is going today,' it's a journal specifically looking at conflict, either conflict they are involved in or conflict they're observing."

By combining the expressive mode of writing often called for in a journal with the more formal mode called for in this course, DeStephen believes that students can discover valuable connections between the theory being studied in class and their experiences with conflict. He says of the course's journaling activity: "It's a very specific application of theory to observation and experience. It's what I call a structured journal. [Students] have to pick something from the course, explain what that concept is from the course and then indicate in the journal how their experience or observation illustrates that particular theory."

Not all students will respond as favorably to journaling, however. Because such students might be more research-oriented, another option DeStephen offers is a traditional research paper. Other assignment possibilities for individual projects are article abstracts, an analysis paper, a conflict intervention paper, and an interview with a professional in the conflict field. (continued on next page) Students also have the option of designing their own project to fulfill a personal or professional interest not addressed by the other projects. This range of assignments forces students to write while allowing them to select the types of writing and, to some extent, the topics with which they feel the most comfortable.

All of these writing projects, while offering students learning opportunities in a variety of areas and modes of discourse, also help students sharpen their thinking skills. DeStephen has found that students have been taught to memorize but not to think critically. He advises: "To teach critical thinking, what I've found is that it's useful to start out by saying 'critically think, but in this box,'" referring to the parameters set forth for each assignment.

Each assignment presented on the syllabus includes an outline of the different sections the writings should include. For example, the journal assignment indicates that every entry should include the date, topic of entry, a description of the incident or episode, relevant course materials, and a conclusion. Providing this kind of general structure has worked best for DeStephen. "To give students no options tends to stifle the creative process, and I get back just memorization. On the other hand, if you tell them 'give me a journal entry' or a 'a paper that analyzes a conflict,' that tends to be too open-ended for them, and they really never get beyond generalities. I want them to exercise critical thinking skills, but critical thinking skills, like any other skills, need to have guidance." He notes that students have learned throughout their schooling to ask what instructors expect of their work, so these kinds of guidelines provide those answers to students.

Additionally, writing projects provide students with the opportunity to interrogate the theory that they are learning. DeStephen stresses that "this is application of theory to practice, not a mathematical equation. . . . The response I get may in fact not reciprocate as the theory might predict that it would." He encourages students to view as learning opportunities the occasions when the outcome does not match the theory. He indicates that these situations, which students might initially view as failures, actually challenge students to think critically about why the outcome they observed differs from the theoretical outcome.

To encourage further critical thinking, DeStephen has in previous quarters included final exam questions on the syllabus. He included the questions, he says, to teach students that "this is not something that you should try to prepare for on the last day of the quarter. These questions reflect some critical questions about the material, and the easiest way to take the final exam is to take it every week. As you are reading through [material for the class], look at the question that relates to that material, formulate and draft an answer. . . . Treat the exam questions as on-going discussion questions."

DeStephen emphasizes the challenge created when helping students develop critical thinking skills. "The toughest thing that I have to do in my teaching is to teach critical thinking." He notes, however, that the results are worth the effort. He points out that while current theory in the field will eventually be obsolete, students will always benefit from those critical thinking skills they develop as they apply theory to practice.

DeStephen not only encourages students to develop as critical thinkers but also as writers. He provides support for students needing assistance and feedback about their writing. "Students like the ability to rewrite. I tell them that the assignment is due on the due date, but if there is something that needs to be corrected, I will give it back to [them], and [they] can either rewrite it or take the grade that [they] currently have." Students have until the end of the quarter to submit these revisions. If a student opts to revise, the previous grade will be replaced by the revision grade.

DeStephen will also comment on student work that is turned in early. He tells his students: "You can turn in assignments anytime you want to, and I will read them and give you feedback. I will even take drafts." Each quarter, four or five students usually take advantage of this opportunity. DeStephen also recommends that his students attend tutorials in the University Writing Center for additional assistance with their papers and refers them to the Writing Center web site <http://www.wright.edu/academics/
writingctr/> for help with MLA format.

While instructor feedback and support services help his students succeed, DeStephen has found that technological advances have helped him integrate writing into his courses more easily. He uses the course management software TopClass to conduct his Communication and Conflict course. The software was designed to facilitate distance education. However, DeStephen has found that the program works in his face-to-face classroom as well, allowing students participating in group projects to stay in "virtual contact" with each other via discussion groups and email.

Even student attitudes, and DeStephen's own attitude, about writing have changed as a result of using technology. "I have found that resistance to writing has gone down the more I've used technology. My resistance has gone down, and students' resistance has gone down." Although DeStephen is unsure of the precise reason that technology seems to facilitate writing, he observes that "with paper, rewrites for students--and for faculty--are painful. . . . Electronically, [providing feedback] becomes much easier to do." He points out that students might find writing more rewarding because multimedia technology allows them to be more creative. Students use PowerPoint and other programs that let them augment their writing with colors, graphics, and pictures. Faculty, he believes, are likely to respond more effectively to electronic texts than to printed texts because electronic texts do not require instructors to face a stack of papers.

For courses like Communication and Conflict (COM 453) that are grounded in theory, writing assignments, particularly "structured journals" or other guideline-driven writing assignments, can allow students to explore and interrogate various theories and can assist students in developing critical thinking skills as they observe the principles of the course at work in the world around them.

Cynthia K. Marshall

As the quarter draws to a close, it may be of interest to look at the way faculty from various disciplines use writing assignments-often very informal ones-to help bring closure to a term. The following comments are excerpted from a much larger collection compiled by Ten Panitz <http://web.nmsu.edu/~sfrantz/tips/courseend.htm>. Because only the responses have been posted, schools are not identified. In many cases, respondents don't even identify their discipline. However, the absence of that information highlights the ease with which these strategies can cross disciplinary boundaries.

Ann Boyce, for example, does not specify her teaching field, but her informal final writing assignment could be adapted to any number of classes. She asks students to use the last class meeting to write the final exam. Working in groups, they formulate and refine two or three questions that would assess what has been covered. She concludes, "In the two years I have done this, I've found their questions are sometimes better than the ones I'd ask, but virtually always on what I consider key points. I'd say that's good."

Others link a final writing assignment to an earlier one. Jody Fernandez, who teaches developmental reading, begins the semester by asking students to write a short autobiography focusing on their reading experiences. Christopher Reisch does something similar on the first day of his mathematics class, asking that students' "math autobiographies" include goals for the current semester and plans for achieving them. At the end of the term, both instructors return these documents and ask students to reflect on how they have changed; Fernandez and Reisch also ask for suggestions for success they can share with the next class.

A similar approach can be adapted for more advanced courses as well. Maurine Harrison asks students in her education and psychology courses the following questions: "How are you changed as a person from taking this course? How are you going to use what you learned 'to make a difference' in the world? How has this course helped you develop as an emerging professional?" In addition, she couches other questions in terms that require students to apply the concepts learned in the course to the course itself-e.g., "What strategies, activities, assignments, etc. best fit your learning style and helped you learn the most?"

All of these retrospective approaches ask writers to look back over the term and synthesize and/or evaluate. Robin Dawes, who teaches computer science, does that, too. In addition, in the final lecture, Dawes asks students to look outside the course as well. The concluding lecture is devoted "to proving or exploring some interesting and counter-intuitive result in the field, related to the course work but not part of the syllabus. For example, in my first-year classes, I usually prove the Halting Problem (we can't test programs for infinite loops). . . . My goal is to awaken or re-affirm the students' perception that there are wonderful and elegant surprises even in so concrete a field, and to communicate (as if they haven't already been swamped with it) my own enthusiasm for theoretical computer science."

The September 1998 WAC newsletter reported the results of a survey of faculty who had taught one or more writing intensive (WI) courses during the first two years of the program. This spring a similar survey was sent to faculty who had taught at least one WI course in the 1998-99 academic year. The surveys, which were mailed to 210 faculty, consisted of two sections. The first part was made up of seven questions with Likert scale response (for each question there were separate scales for GE classes and for WI classes in the major); the second section contained six open-ended questions, along with a space for additional comments.

Replies came from all instructional ranks, ranging from full professor to graduate teaching assistant. Though the return rate was up slightly (from 11% to 16%), it provides only a small sample of those actually teaching WI courses (most people who work with surveys expect 10% return rate).

Given the small size of the sample-and the impressionistic nature of the questions-it would be inappropriate to try to draw strong conclusions on the basis of this survey alone. It is highly appropriate, though, to use the perceptions recorded here to identify areas where attention is needed. Thus, the following information is presented to invite reflection on the WAC program as it enters its fourth year.

Meeting the Goals of the WAC Program
The seven 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:
GE 3.76
Major 3.74

(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:
GE 2.42
Major 3.22

(3) To what extent did the writing assignments help students learn the course content?
Mean responses:
GE 3.69
Major 3.78

(4) To what extent did the writing assignments help foster critical thinking?
Mean responses:
GE 3.29
Major 3.67

(5) To what extent did the writing assignments help students improve their writing abilities?
Mean responses:
GE 2.64
Major 3.15

(6) To what extent did the writing assignments help stimulate class discussion?
Mean responses:
GE 2.31
Major 2.81

(7) To what extent did the writing assignments help students learn the writing conventions of the field?
Mean responses:
GE 3.23
Major 3.07

Even in light of the limitations noted above, certain patterns in these responses point to areas we need to investigate more closely. For instance, there is comparatively little confidence that students in GE classes recognize a link between writing assignments and course objectives. Admittedly, question 2 calls for a highly speculative response-faculty perception of student perceptions. Still, the doubt expressed there, especially in contrast to the response about classes in the major, suggests that we need to do more to make that link clearer for our students. It may be, too, that making learning objectives still more explicit in GE classes would be beneficial. My experience teaching GE classes has convinced me that spending a few minutes talking about those objectives is a profitable investment of that class time.

Of particular concern is the response to the question about the extent to which writing assignments helped students improve their writing abilities. Again, the difference in responses concerning GE classes and those in the major is striking-and significant. Studies repeatedly suggest that the quality of writing is closely associated with the writer's perceived stake in what's being written about. Another possible factor that may hinder improvement is the newness and/or complexity of the subject matter. Struggling with unfamiliar ideas often leads to unclear writing, and surface errors are likelier under those conditions as well. (The phenomenon is not limited to Wright State students; Joseph Williams has observed a marked increase in errors in the writing of first-year law students at the University of Chicago-and a subsequent "recovery" as students become more familiar with the cognitive terrain.) Clearly, this is an area of concern that needs to be addressed as well.

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. Several respondents commented that the program sends students a positive message about the importance of writing, including the value of "writing capably and well as a life/career skill." Others, however, were less convinced. According to one writer, "Students continue to view this requirement as unimportant and a hassle. Many feel that this is unnecessary to their field of endeavor."

In light of the concerns registered above, it is not surprising that a number of comments in this section focused on the writing skills students bring to their WI classes (sidebar comments have been chosen as representative of these concerns). As in the survey responses last year, a number of writers stated their concern that students were not transferring what they learned in English 101 and 102 into their other classes-or that they were not learning what they should in those classes.

Several writers connected students' writing with their reading, and a couple suggested we pay more attention to that. One even made this (hesitant) suggestion: "I believe that the poor writing performance of our students stems from their lack of reading and reading comprehension. Maybe we should think about instituting reading across the curriculum (?)."

Other respondents expressed concern that WAC requirements are not "enforced" consistently from one course to another. Several suggested providing standardized evaluation sheets that might be used in all WI courses, though one writer neatly identified a potential problem by putting the request in this form: "Provide standard writing evaluation sheets--but do not require the use of the evaluation sheets."

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, certainly we can begin to address some of the concerns identified here. Some projects already under way may be helpful. At least one of the Winter 2000 workshops will invite faculty from across campus to take part in designing evaluation criteria that can be made available to-but not forced upon-faculty teaching WI courses.

For the past year and a half, the Writing Program Committee of the English Department has been reviewing English 101 and 102 and redesigning those courses. Details about those courses will be featured in the May issue of the WAC newsletter. Perhaps that will help to open a dialogue about the relation of first-year composition courses and WI classes-and lead to clearer assumptions and expectations on all sides. In addition, the GE Implementation Committee is continuing to work with plans for the revised 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 any other member of the committee.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the WAC Committee for their advice in constructing the survey and the Office of Budget Planning and Resource Analysis (particularly Barb Bullock) for their assistance in collecting and tabulating the results of the survey.

Joe Law