|
WAC Newsletter
INSIDE: A Short History of WAC
at Wright State This fall marks the beginning of the fifth year of Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) at Wright State—the fifth year of its official
implementation as a university-wide program, that is. The WAC program
originated a good deal earlier than that, and several upcoming issues of
the newsletter will include stories exploring the beginnings of the
program. I hope these newsletter stories will accomplish two things. First,
they are intended to acknowledge and to honor the faculty whose concern
for their students led them to develop the program. That group includes
not only the comparatively small group directly involved in drawing up
various plans for WAC, but also the many more, perhaps less visible, who
taught pilot sections of writing intensive classes in the major and in
General Education, sometimes adding to their workload in doing so.
Second, the history of the WAC program—which is intertwined with the
development of the current GE program—may have implications for
implementing the revised GE program in Fall 2003. This first installment, an attempt to construct a brief chronicle of
the origins of WAC as a university-wide program, draws on a variety of
sources. When I came to Wright State in 1996 to coordinate the WAC
program, Lillie Howard (Associate Provost for Academic Affairs) and Rich
Bullock (Director of Writing Programs) both presented me with boxes of
materials they had accumulated during the years they had been involved
in bringing WAC to the University. The earliest items date back to 1986,
a full decade before the current program went into effect. Along with
program materials from other schools and articles about writing in a
variety of disciplines, these files contain a wealth of documents
relating to the development of our own WAC program—program proposals
(and multiple draft versions of those proposals), department chairs’
reports of faculty meetings concerning WAC, lists of people attending
workshops, copies of FacultyLine and minutes of Academic Council and
General Faculty meetings, inventories of writing intensive (WI) classes,
and so on. These files document the thoroughness, as well as the
staggering amount of work, that went into the development of the
program. Clearly, when Frank Lloyd Wright said that God is in the
details, he couldn’t have been thinking about designing a
university-wide program! Beginnings The WAC program appears to have been implicit in the current GE
program, which was approved in Winter 1985. Slated for implementation in
Fall 1987, the GE plan called for “a significant writing experience”
for students in those classes. At the same time this plan was approved,
WSU was awarded an NEH grant (written by Lillie Howard, then an
associate dean in the College of Liberal Arts), which provided $142,000
for developing the new program, which included, of course, finding ways
of supplying the promised “significant writing experience.” Over the next two years, groups of faculty met regularly to discuss
writing in their GE classes, and the University Curriculum Committee
worked with departments across campus to ensure that expectations for
writing would be detailed in the syllabi of those classes. The files of
WAC materials include a number of items relating to workshops held on
campus as faculty worked together on the project. Rich Bullock, who
joined the English department as Director of Writing Programs in 1987,
organized a number of sessions each quarter to deal with such concerns
as finding time to include writing in a class, designing writing
assignments, and responding to student writing. Particularly noteworthy during these years is a series of visits by
Toby Fulwiler, director of the WAC program at the University of Vermont
and a nationally recognized scholar in WAC. Beginning in 1987, these
workshops continued annually for a number of years, covering a wide
range of topics and taking a variety of approaches. One year, for
instance, Fulwiler was accompanied by professors from history and
chemistry, who led discipline-related sessions during the second day of
the event. Evaluations of these workshops express a good deal of
enthusiasm, and the impact of his visits is still evident in the syllabi
of WI courses filed each quarter—even more compelling evidence of his
contribution to the program here. The Emergence of a WAC Program The new GE program went into effect in a time of increasing
enrollments. During the first two years of the program, for example,
freshman enrollment increased a total of 21%. That kind of growth meant,
among other things, a high demand for GE courses and a rapidly swelling
backlog of students needing those classes. According to a 1992 memo
summarizing the events of those years, the University had three options
for solving the problem, none of them ideal. It could reduce the number
of classes required, waive requirements for some students, or increase
class sizes. Of these alternatives, the last seemed least
unsatisfactory. Increased class sizes meant, of course, that writing
would have to be substantially reduced—if not eliminated
altogether—in large classes; however, sections of 60 or fewer students
were still expected to require writing. There had already been
discussions of a formal WAC program; now it seemed that such a program
might be a means of preserving part of the “significant writing
experience” intended in the original GE program. Large classes would
still be exempt from the writing requirement, but it was hoped that the
number of large classes could be reduced. Such a project would require
substantial resources, and President Paige Mulhollan and Charles E.
Hathaway (Vice President for Academic Affairs) were able to identify
funding for this purpose. Serious discussions of a WAC program had begun taking place as early
as 1986-87, with the formation of the University Ad Hoc Committee on
Writing Across the Curriculum. That committee was convened to consider
writing at all levels, not just in GE courses. After a time, a second
committee was formed from this group—the Ad Hoc Committee on Writing
in General Education. The plan that eventually emerged in early 1991 went beyond GE,
calling for writing intensive classes in the major as well as in GE.
These two sets of requirements were seen as interlocking, each
reinforcing the other. The program was to be implemented in two phases,
beginning with writing in the major, which, like the current program,
called for students to complete two writing intensive (WI) courses in
the major. That part of the plan was approved at the May meetings of
Academic Council and the general faculty that year. The proposal for
writing in GE was to follow. The 1991-92 Proposals As suggested above, the proposal for WAC in the major was largely
unproblematic. Crafting a workable writing in GE component proved much
more difficult, however. The plan that went to Academic Council on
January 6, 1992, was relatively simple, proposing four requirements: • Students would take
four WI courses in GE in addition to ENG 101 and 102—no specific
courses were identified—and the program was to be implemented
incrementally.
After the GE proposal was introduced at the Academic Council meeting,
two open forums on the topic were scheduled. Ensuing discussions
raised a number of questions not explicitly addressed by the plan.
Accordingly, the WAC proposal was modified to make writing assignments
more flexible and to delay implementation briefly (from Fall 1992 to
Winter 1993). In addition, the new version clarified some implementation
issues, providing ways that students who did not pass the WI portion of
a course might satisfy the WAC requirement and supplying a formula to
prorate the GE WAC requirement for transfer and returning students.
Those revisions were introduced at the February Academic Council
meeting, and the proposal was sent forward for the meeting of General
Faculty scheduled later that month. By that time, however, it was clear
that all implementation issues had not been resolved; consequently, a
substitute motion to postpone the WAC program indefinitely was also sent
forward. Writing in the major and writing in GE had been conceived as
“interlocking parts,” one necessary to the completion of the other.
Thus a decision to postpone indefinitely would postpone the entire
program, not just the GE portion. The minutes of the February 18 General Faculty meeting record that,
“after a great deal of discussion,” Lillie Howard (who chaired the
Ad Hoc Committee for Writing in GE) read a formal recommendation to
accept the substitute motion for indefinite postponement. The text of
her recommendation was attached to the minutes and distributed to the
entire faculty with the next issue of FacultyLine. In those comments she
notes that the “impasse in implementation” was not seen as
“signifying the absence of faculty commitment to writing. Of course we
are committed to writing—to providing opportunities for students to
improve their proficiency, to encouraging students to use writing as a
‘tool of discovery,’ to demonstrating for students the ways in which
writing is integral to all disciplines—all of these goals we had set
for the Writing Across the Curriculum Program.” That commitment was indeed evident in subsequent events. As noted
earlier, funding already had been earmarked for this initiative, and
that money was now made available to colleges wishing to
“experiment” with WI courses on their own. As a result—even though
the entire program had been postponed—colleges implemented (or
continued to implement) the requirements for writing in the major. The
College of Liberal Arts also continued to require writing in several GE
courses, including all sections of Great Books (ENG 204, PHL 204, REL
204). In fact, in that college all GE courses offered in sections of 60
or fewer students required writing. Similarly, the College of Science
and Mathematics continued to require written lab reports in the sciences
and in MATH 105. All sections of ECON 200 were made WI as well. Because
of this ongoing commitment to writing, many elements of the WAC program
were actually in place already when the current program was approved by
Academic Council (May 1995) and the General Faculty (November 1995). The 1994-95 Proposal When the new Ad Hoc Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum was
formed (Fall 1994), it consolidated the work of the earlier groups,
drawing on the “experiments” of the intervening years as well.
Documentation from that academic year demonstrates just how actively
this group worked with the University Curriculum and Academic Policy
Committee, soliciting feedback from faculty across campus. The WAC program proposed in 1994 is fundamentally the same as the one
postponed in 1992. Both call for two WI classes in the major and four WI
classes in GE (in addition to ENG 101 and 102). The amount of writing
called for in both plans is similar, though the newer plan does provide
more flexibility than the earlier one. The chief difference is in the
way implementation issues are addressed. First, the 1994-95 plan
identifies specific GE courses that would be designated consistently as
WI, thereby reducing the potential for the confusion that would result
from changing designations each quarter. A concomitant change is the
provision of WI sections in standard course substitutions. Equally important is the expanded range of options open to students
who cannot satisfactorily complete the WI portion of four GE courses.
Those options are also available for transfer and returning students,
another distinct improvement over the earlier plan, which simply
prorated the requirement without considering whether the student had
already completed equivalent GE courses elsewhere (or earlier at Wright
State). In addition, the newer plan also establishes a mechanism—a
standing subcommittee of the University Curriculum and Academic Policy
Committee—to deal with the issues that would continue to arise in this
program that affects undergraduate education at all levels. As this brief comparison of the two proposals suggests, the later
plan provided more flexibility while establishing ways to deal with the
complexity of the WAC enterprise. Although those who had worked so hard
to develop the 1991-92 proposal must have been disappointed by the
postponement, the additional time proved advantageous to the program.
The plan eventually adopted provided a clearly better means for
achieving the desired goals. Some Implications for WAC and GE in the Future Since the implementation of WAC in 1996, the GE program in which it
evolved has itself been revised. Planning for implementation in Fall
2003 is still in the early stages. Now that learning objectives for the
six areas of the program have been developed by the General Education
Implementation Committee and approved by the Faculty Senate, courses can
be (re)designed to bring the plan into actuality. As the planning for implementation goes forward, a number of
questions will need to be raised about specific ways in which WAC and GE
will operate together to achieve the stated goals of both programs.
What, for instance, is the role of writing in helping students
“recognize appropriate ethical uses of social scientific knowledge”
or “understand the dynamic interaction between society and the
scientific enterprise”? Some larger questions need to be faced as
well. Since four-hour (rather than three-hour) courses will be the norm,
how might that change affect writing assignments? In addition, the
document providing the framework for the new GE program calls for two
new categories of writing intensive classes—college component courses
(a new entity not yet fully defined by the colleges) and non-western
courses (currently large classes). What will these classes become? The 1992 report of the Ad Hoc Committee summarizes the efforts that
had taken place to date—“five years’ work of developing a WAC
program, offering WAC workshops for faculty, identifying WAC courses,
developing syllabi and otherwise preparing the university community for
program implementation.” Work of that magnitude still remains to be
done in preparing for the new GE program, and WAC can be a significant
part of it, a specific means of realizing its general goals. Some Acknowledgments The current WAC program is the result of the work of many people, and
it is impossible to acknowledge—or even identify—all of them. The
following names are simply the names of those most visible, the names of
those who served on a number of committees that gradually brought the
program into being. Subsequent issues of the WAC newsletter will feature
faculty who carried out some of the WAC “experiments” in their
classrooms. As suggested above, one of the earliest proponents of WAC at Wright
State was Lillie Howard, and her tireless commitment is everywhere
evident. The earliest group identified in the files I received is a 1987
University Ad Hoc Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum, which
consisted of Peter Bracher, Herb Colle, Patricia Gilbert, Lillie Howard,
Mary Ann Lovell, Ed Rutter, John Treacy, Tom Whissen, and Alice Swinger
(Chairer). The 1991-92 proposal acknowledged the work of the following people:
Richard Bullock, Director of Writing Programs, Department of English
Language and Literatures, in the formulation of this proposal, as well
as the assistance of other members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Writing
Across the Curriculum: Deans Perry Moore, James Brandeberry, Jane Swart,
Don Carlson, and Richard Millman; Associate Deans William Rickert,
Charles Willis, and Rishi Kumar; Chairers Peter Bracher, Herb Brown, and
Ed Rutter; and faculty members Leo Finkelstein, Harry Lipsitt, Jim
Schwartz, and Marjorie Pappas; and Associate Vice President for Academic
Affairs, Lillie Howard. We also acknowledge the assistance and
participation of Rudy Fichtenbaum, Vice President of the Faculty
(1990-1991), Susan Praeger, Chair, University Curriculum Committee,
Gerald Meike and Richard Mercer. In addition, memos from those years
include Randy Moore as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Writing in
General Education. The 1994 proposal—the one eventually adopted—included the
following acknowledgments: The 1994 Ad Hoc Committee for Writing Across
the Curriculum—Greg Bernhardt, Tom Sav, Edgar Rutter, Barbara
O’Brien, Harry Lipsitt, William Rickert, Lillie Howard, Gail Fred—as
well as the support of Provost Will Hutzel and all of the Deans. We also
acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Richard Bullock, Chris Hall,
Henry Limouze, and other members of the Writing faculty in the
Department of English Language and Literatures; of President of the
Faculty, James Sayer; Jeanne Fraker, Toby Pinkerton (student), and all
other members of the University Undergraduate Curriculum and Academic
Policy Committee; and the general University Faculty. This sketch of some major steps toward the creation and
implementation of a university-wide WAC program is necessarily
selective. Even within those limitations, though, it suggests that the
program developed in an environment of continuity and change (for an
illustration, look at the names and titles listed above). Those mutual
forces are in evidence at the beginning of the fifth year of the WAC
program. I hope you will join me in thanking those who worked so
diligently to bring the program into being—and that you will join me
in carrying on their work toward those goals. - Joe Law Helping Students
Quote Often, students find incorporating
researched source material into their academic writing to be a
challenge. Professor Nancy Mack, English, uses the following
handout with her undergraduates, comparing using quotations to building
a sandwich. HOW TO USE DIRECT CITATIONS OF AUTHORS A quotation should not be substituted for your own words. You
should use learned sources to back up your own position. First,
select an authority on the subject whom you respect; then, find a really
good comment about the issue that you find enlightening. SANDWICH YOUR QUOTATIONS INTRODUCTION • Tell the author’s full
name.
• Give the author’s exact
words.
• Try to do one or more of the
following: - Explain your interpretation of
the quote to the reader. • Make your analysis much
longer than the original quote. INDIRECT
CITATIONS A reference to the author can be made
without direct quotation. This reference should be to the
author’s work in the field or a major idea that the author is credited
with originating. This reference is not as strong as when you use
a direct quotation. Faculty Feedback on Teaching
Writing Intensive Courses Each spring, faculty who have taught at least one writing intensive
(WI) course during the academic year are asked for their comments about
those courses. The surveys, which were mailed to 224 faculty this
spring, consisted of two sections: (1) seven questions with Likert scale
responses (with a separate scale for GE classes and WI classes for each
question) and (2) six open-ended questions, along with a space for
additional comments. Thanks to all who took the time to fill out this survey at the end of
a busy spring quarter. This year, 63 responses were returned, a rate
(28%) well above the one usually predicted for surveys (10%). As in the
past, responses came from all instructional ranks, ranging from full
professor to graduate teaching assistant. 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, I have assigned
“significantly” a value of 4, “not at all” a value of 1. Meeting the Goals of the WAC Program—Spring 2000 (1) To what extent were you aware of the goals of the WAC program
when you taught your first WI course? Mean responses:
Mean responses:
Mean responses:
Mean responses:
Mean responses:
Mean responses:
Mean responses:
A few representative comments from this year’s survey appear below.
However, the November issue will include a closer look at this section
of the survey. Meanwhile, my thanks to Neal Stark, Budget Planning and Resource
Analysis, for collecting the surveys and tabulating the results. - Joe Law
Who Teaches
WI Classes? From the class lists supplied by the Registrar for the 1999-2000
academic year, we identified 224 individuals who had taught at least one
section designated WI. 45 full professors (20%)
|