Integrating Writing into the Disciplines: Risks and Rewards (original) (raw)

Abstract

With W. Brock MacDonald and Margaret Procter. When we think of independent writing programs, we tend to think of sepa- ration from the English Department and creation of a new department. Such programs can take many forms, however, born out of national educational traditions as well as cultural and institutional exigencies. is chapter presents a case study of a successful Canadian independent writing program that is centrally funded and led by a faculty writing specialist, yet implemented lo- cally in collaboration with a range of participating departments. e Writing Instruction for Teaching Assistants (WIT) initiative in the Faculty of Arts and Science at the University of Toronto exempli es a distinctive type of inde- pendence as a program that works across disciplines and is not limited to its own departmental perspective or structure. e program has three main goals: improving undergraduate writing instruction across the curriculum; preparing future faculty to teach writing as an integral part of their pedagogy, whatever their discipline; and disseminating cultures of writing across the institution and beyond. Its distributed structure challenges the notion that writing pro- grams must either build on or react against traditional US models of sta - ing, departmental de nitions, and funding. WIT has created new methods for cross-curricular writing instruction by sharing power and responsibility among the program’s writing specialist (who serves as coordinator), members of participating departments (including administrators, faculty, and graduate teaching assistants), and the central administrative structure that sponsors this shared work as a core element of the curriculum. One indicator of the pro- gram’s reach is that in its six years, 22 departments from the sciences, social sciences and humanities have applied and been accepted to participate. e program operates on a large scale: it currently involves about 80 undergrad- uate courses and instructors in 20 departments, 500 graduate students, and over 10,000 undergraduates. WIT has not only developed integrated writing instruction but also transformed local conceptions of writing and learning and improved teaching practices, thereby changing institutional culture, which Condon and Rutz (2012) argue is key to the survival of WAC programs and which also applies to independent writing programs of all kinds.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (41)

  1. Anson, C. (2012, June). Artificial turf or the new grass roots? Exploring departmentally localized models of WAC. Keynote address, 11th International Writing Across the Curriculum Conference. Savanannah, GA.
  2. Anson, C. A. & Dannels, D. (2009). Profiling programs: Formative uses of departmental consultations in the assessment of communication across the curriculum. [Special issue on Writing Across the Curriculum and Assessment] Across the Disciplines, 6. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/assessment/anson\_dannels.cfm.
  3. Artze-Vega, I., Bowdon, M., Emmons, K., Eodice, M., Hess, S. K., Coleman Lam- onica, C. & Nelms, G. (2013). Privileging pedagogy: Composition, rhetoric, and faculty development. College Composition and Communication, 65(1), 162-184.
  4. Bean, J. C. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  5. Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
  6. Boyer Commission, Carnegie Institute. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook.
  7. Brammer, C., Amare, N. & Campbell, K, S. (2008). Culture shock: Teaching writ- ing within interdisciplinary contact zones. Across the Disciplines, 5. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/brammeretal2008.cfm.
  8. Condon, W. & Rutz, C. (2012). A taxonomy of writing across the curriculum pro- grams: Evolving to serve wider agendas. College Composition and Communication, 64(4), 357-382.
  9. Curriculum Review and Renewal Committee (CRRC) (2007). Final report. Toronto: University of Toronto, Faculty of Arts and Science.
  10. Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P. & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Portsmouth, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum. Faculty of Arts and Science Ad Hoc Committee on Writing (2004). Writing in arts and science. Retrieved from http://individual.utoronto.ca/procter/reports/2004\_FAS.pdf.
  11. Faery, R. B. (1993). Teachers and writers: The faculty writing workshop and writing across the curriculum. Writing Program Administration, 17(1-2), 31-42.
  12. Gallagher, C. W. (2012). The trouble with outcomes: Pragmatic inquiry and educa- tional aims. College English, 75(1), 42-60.
  13. Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
  14. Graves, R. (1994). Writing instruction in Canadian universities. Winnipeg, MB: Inkshed.
  15. Graves, R. & Graves, H. (Eds.) (2006). Writing centres, writing seminars, writing cul- ture: Writing instruction in Anglo-Canadian universities. Winnipeg, MB: Inkshed.
  16. Hedengren, B. F. (2001, May). TA training across the curriculum: Covert catalyst for change. Paper presented at the National Writing Across the Curriculum conference, Bloomington, IN.
  17. Hedengren, B. F. (2004). A TA's guide to teaching writing in all disciplines. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
  18. Hubert, H. (1995). Babel after the fall: The place of writing in English. University of Toronto Quarterly, 64(3), 381-397.
  19. Huntzinger, M., McPherron, P. & Rajagopal, M. (2011). The TA consultant program: Improving undergraduate instruction and graduate student professional development. In Miller, J. E. & Groccia, J. E. (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol. 29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  20. Hyland, K. (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. New York: Peter Lang.
  21. Jablonski, J. A. (2006). Academic writing consulting and WAC: Methods and models for guiding cross-curricular literacy work. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  22. Light, R. J. (1990). Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life-First report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
  23. Light, R. J. (1992). Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life 2. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
  24. Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge MA: Harvard.
  25. MacDonald, W. B., Procter, M., Tallman, K. (2008). Integrating writing instruction in Arts and Science courses: Practical findings from the 2007-2008 departmental writing initiatives. Retrieved from http://individual.utoronto.ca/procter/reports/2008\_ JointFAS.pdf.
  26. McLeod, S. H. (1997). WAC at century's end: Haunted by the ghost of Fred Newton Scott. Writing Program Administration, 21(1), 67-73.
  27. Procter, M. (2011). Talking the talk and walking the walk: Establishing the academic role of writing centres. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne & L. Yousoubova (Eds.). Writing in knowledge societies. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books /winks.
  28. Rodrigue, T. K. (2012) The (in)visible world of teaching assistants in the disciplines: Preparing TAs to teach writing. Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learn- ing, and Academic Writing, 9. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles /rodrigue2012.cfm.
  29. Roen, D., Goggin, M. D. & Clary-Lemon, J. (2008). Teaching of writing and writing instructors through the ages. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 347-364). New York/ London: Erlbaum.
  30. Rolheiser, C., Seifert, T., McCloy, C., Gravestock, P., Stewart, G., Greenleaf, E., . . . McKean, S. (2013). Developing teaching assistants as members of the university teach- ing team. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
  31. Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines (2nd ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  32. Segal, J., Pare, A., Brent, D. & Vipond, D. (1992). The researcher as missionary: Prob- lems with rhetoric and reform in the disciplines. College Composition and Communi- cation, 50(1), 71-90.
  33. Sommers, N. (2002). Shaped by writing: The undergraduate experience. Harvard expository writing program [VHS].
  34. Cambridge, MA: Telequest.
  35. Sommers, N. (2005). The case for research: One writing program administrator's story. College Composition and Communication, 56(3), 507-514.
  36. Strachan, W. (2008). Writing-intensive: Becoming w-faculty in a new writing curriculum. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
  37. Thaiss, C. & Porter, T. (2010). The state of WAC/WID in 2010: Methods and results of the U.S. survey of the international WAC/WID mapping project. College Compo- sition and Communication, 61(3), 534-570.
  38. Townsend, M. (2008). WAC Program vulnerability and what to do about it: An update and brief bibliographic essay. WAC Journal, 19, 45-61. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol19/townsend.pdf.
  39. Waldo, M. L. (2004). Demythologizing language difference in the academy: Establishing discipline-based writing programs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  40. Walvoord, B. (1997) From conduit to customer: The role of WAC faculty in WAC assessment. In K. B. Yancey & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum (pp. 15-36). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  41. Zawacki, T. M. (2008). Writing fellows as WAC change agents: Changing what? Changing whom? Changing how? [Special issue on Writing Fellows]. Across the Disciplines, 5. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/zawacki.cfm.