ORIGINAL

Ay

FINAL REPORT OF THE FACULTY SENATE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM

vee

Faculty Senate Resolutions #90-7 through #90-19
Approved by the Faculty Senate: February 20, 1990
Approved by the Chancellor: March 5, 1990

 
TO: Faculty Senate of East Carolina University

FROM: Ad Hoc Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum
DATE: 13 January 1990

RE: Final Report

The attached report reflects nearly four years of research and investigation into
the problems in student writing at East Carolina University and into the best
remedies for those problems. We offer this report in the belief that East Carolina
University desperately needs a university-wide writing program. At the same time,
we hope the report that follows reflects our deep respect for the integrity of each

department and unit in the university and our hope that each will find a way to
incorporate writing into its curricula.

This report is respectfully submitted by the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on
Writing Across the Curriculum, including its past and current memberships:

Patrick Bizzaro, English, Director of Writing Across the Curriculum

Jo Allen, Director of the Writing Center, Enalish
Genevieve Bartol, Nursing (past member)
» John Carter, History {past member)
Robert Christian, Biology
Mark Coley, Medicine
Resa Crane-Rodger, English graduate student
Frances Daugherty, Art
Collett Dilworth, English
Jeff Everman, Student Government Association
Alton Finch, Technology ‘past member)
James W. Kirkland, English
Betty Levy, Education ‘past member)
John Longhill, Business ‘past member)
Richard Mauger, Geoloay
Nancy Mayberry, Foreign Languages and Literature
Richard McCarty, Philosophy
Richard Miller, Philosophy
Dorothy Muller, General College
Larry Neiman, Medicine ‘past member)
Pam Pentand, Athletics
Roger Sharpe, Criminal Justice
Mel Stanforth, Art
. Marion Sykes, University College
» Steve Tacker, Psychology
Carol Thompson, Sociclogy and Anthropol agy
Robert Wendling, Leisure Systems Studies ‘past member)
Kenneth Wilburn, History
Tinsley Yarbrough, Political Science ‘past member)

 
THE WRITING PROBLEM

In April 1987, members of the Writing Center Steering Committee brought to the
Senate“s attention three disturbing facts:

* Over a four-year period, nearly 40 % of all incoming freshmen were
unable to demonstrate minimal writing competencies in placement essays
written prior to enrollment in English 1100: Freshman Composition;

In a survey, 82 % of recent ECU graduates working at local businesses
and industries indicated that they had not been instructed in writing
since taking freshman composition; and

those same graduates spend 23 % of their worktime writing and 1? %
reading the writing of others.

The Senate responded to this infomation by appFoving Resolution 87-12, which
established the Ad Hoc Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM

harged it with the following four tasks:

g:: Senate developed the Ad Hoc Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum and

* to collect relevant information about research on writing

# to study writing across the curriculum ‘hereafter WAC) programs in
use at other institutions with student populations similar to the
population at ECU

to analyze these findings and any other relevant data in light of the
needs of ECU faculty and students

to make specific recommendations to the Senate for the development of
a program in WAC so that the Senate can use the available information
to decide if such a program can and should be instituted at East
Carolina University

 
FINDINGS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON WAC
The Committee was divided into four subcommittees to satisfy the Senate’s charges.

Research on Writing One subcommittee set out to collect relevant information on
research in writing. The subcommittee provided a working definition of what we mean
by "writing across the curriculum": teacher’s use of student writing in all
disciplines as a means of (1) increasing learning and (2) improving students”
writing ability. Numerous scholarly articles reported the success of writing as a
means of helping students become better learners and on the value of employing

writing to communicate learning in courses other than those offered by the
Department of English.

WAC at Institutions Similar to ECU A second subcommittee surveyed programs in WAC
at nine institutions similar to East Carolina University. Each offers some
systematic form of remediation, as we already Go at ECU, and five of them run an
active program in WAC administered through the Department of English, the Vice
Chancellor’s office, or through a General College structure. Seven of the nine
programs offer writing-intensive courses “often in the students’ majors), have a
director for the program, and assign to a committee the task of approving or
disapproving syllabuses for those courses. The biggest problem in instituting such
program seems to be maintaining faculty interest beyond the first or second year.
aculty need to be rewarded for obtaining new skills and for experimenting with the
ses of writing-to-learn strategies.

Attitudes of ECU Faculty toward WAC A third subcommittee surveyed faculty at ECU
to determine their interest in a WAC program. On the whole, responses to the
questionnaire suggest that the faculty recognizes a significant problem with student
writing and is willing to address the problem directly, in their classrooms. Most
would be willing to participate in such a program, at least initially, if provided
appropriate time and student-teacher ratios.

Attitudes of ECU Students toward WAC A fourth subcommittee surveyed students at

ECU. Generally, students express a concern that the university should do more to
heip them develop their writing skills.

 
ILOT STUDIES

At its January 1989 meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum
recommended to the Senate that pilot Studies of WAC be run to further examine the
ways writing might be used in classrooms with ECU students. At that time, Acting
Vice Chancellor Bloodworth provided the committee with enough funding to support
four pilot studies, which have since been completed.

As announced in the October 1989 Senate meeting, the participants in the
studies--Drs. Muller (General College), Wilburn ‘History), Sharpe (Criminal
Justice), McCarty ¢Philosophy), and Thompson ‘(Sociology and
Anthropology)--incorporated writing into their teaching in an effort to find out how
well writing works as a method for improving student learning and writing.

The results of those studies, lending support as we might have suspected to the
well-documented successes of WAC programs across the country, suggest that teaching
strategies involving the use of writing can be implemented with relative ease and
will result in improvements in student writing and learning, depending on the Kind
of learning desired. ‘

 
Bcus ONS

We can conclude from our four years’ study that one method to attack the problem of
poor writing and learning among students is by instituting a program in WAC. More
specifically, we conclude the following:

that writing skills among many incoming ECU students are unsatisfactory

that writing skills among many graduating ECU students are unsatisfactory

that WAC is a method used natianally--including in various ways
at each of the nine institutions identified by the WAC committee as
being similar to ECU--to combat weak writing among students

that WAC has the additional benefit of helping students become
better learners

that from all reports--published research as well as our own pilot
studies--WAC works, provided classes are carefully designed to
achieve the desired results

that from all reports, faculty, students, and administrators at ECU
support a program in WAC

that any program should provide various options to faculty who choose
to be involved; the more options available Cincluding the option
not to participate at all}, the more popular the program

that incentives should be made available to reward faculty for
learning new skills and experimenting with the use of writing in their
classes; incentives will help combat attrition that has set in at
other institutions using WAC

that, as a university program, WAC should be housed outside the English
Department

that, eventually, the program must have a staff and cross-disciplinary
organizational structure

that workshops, conferences, and tutorial training sessions are
excellent means for preparing faculty to use writing in their classes

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Ad Hoc Committee on WAC recommends the following:

1, that the Senate support efforts to develop multi-
disciplinary and multicultural initiatives, such as Writing Across the
Curriculum

that the Senate recognize that some incoming students at ECU lack the Kinds
of writing skills they will need both as students and, once graduated,
as professionals

that the Senate support the principle that writing can and may be used
in Classes throughout the university to help students become better
learners and improved writers

that the involvement of faculty in a WAC program be optional

that faculty who participate in a WAC progtam be justly rewarded
for their efforts

that since WAC can include a variety of uses of writing, that any program
present teachers with options for the way they might use writing in their
classes and train them to employ those options

that WAC be developed by beginning with existing progr
the Writing Center, and with courses which currently

8. that a support system for WAC be built as soon as possi
Writing Center so that the program can begin as earl

+f

?. that a committee be appointed by the current Director of WAC ta continue
the task of developing WAC in cooperation with the office of the Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs

that changes in student writing and learning as a product of WAC be
studied over the next three years

that any changes in curricula as a product of WAC be carried
established committees

12. that WAC should be under the auspices of the office of the Vi
Chancellor for Academic Affairs

 
Resolution #92-17 (included in the Curriculum Committee Minutes of March 26, 1992.)
** Approved by the Faculty Senate: April 14, 1992
Approved by the Chancellor: Qers\ AA, \AAD

( 6 EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
PROGRAM IN WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM

A PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE WAC COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION

This proposal for a Writing Across the Curriculum (hereafter, WAC) Program at East
Carolina University includes (!) writing-intensive course models (hereafter W-l), (II)

program implementation, (Ill) program administration, (IV) program evaluation, and
(V) suppor.

Il. WRITING-INTENSIVE COURSE GUIDELINES

The models that follow, intended to serve as guidelines for W-| courses, provide

general idea of the types and amount of writing that ideal lly should be incorp

rn
vi

nmoan
ere f

rate

W-I courses Remember: the following are guidelines for V’-l course cevelo

ot hard-and-fast requirements . These models are based on the belief (1)
hare is closely related to thinking in any discipline and (2) that writing is, in fain a
process. {f none of the models is appropriate, a new model may be suggested in

developing a course.

f

VE
=

Please also note that the general designation, W-| COURSE, applies equally to
courses or sections of courses employing the W-I approach. Given the current
status of writing in the university, there is very little need for the development of new
courses to accommodate a writing emphasis; special, designated sections of certain
courses may be used as W-I courses. The WAC committee will work, aS necessary,
with individual departments in devising WI courses or sections Of courses.

MODEL ONE: W-! COURSES EMPHASIZING ACADEMIC WRITING

This model employs the kinds of writing tasks most often required of students in
college and taught in the English 1100 and 1200 sequence. These tasks include
research papers, essays in various modes, summaries and abstracts of texts,
critiques of texts, and various kinds of reports (€.g., book reviews).

The following academic writing assignments--or variations of them--wou'ld be
perfectly acceptable uses of academic writing in a W-I course.

fe) 1 research paper. of 10-15 pages, written in multiple drafts, and 2 short
"preparation" papers such as summaries, critiques, and syntheses of source

materials (2-3 pages each)

OR, 4-5 short papers (of 3-5 pages each), in multiple crafts, summarizing,
critiquing, or synthesizing course reading materials

OR, 2 book reviews, 2 magazine article reviews (of 3-5 pages each), in
multiple drafts, and a short position paper (of 5 pages) based upon the

reviews

 
WAC Proposal

oO OR, 4-5 short Papers in

rhetorical modes (e.g.,
comparison/contrast, or

one
one personal experience,
Persuasion)

and one

OR, any other comparable assignments

totaling approximately 20-25 pages
of EDITED academic writing

MODEL TWO: W-I COURSES EMPHASIZING PROFESSIONAL WRITING

This option differs from W-I courses emnn

Nasizing academic writing primarily in the
kind of texts students will be required to y,

vrite, Naturally, there may be somec rry-
over from one emphasis to a

nother; skis such
synthesizing tend to be useful i

iguin
n the writing of pro
the writing of academic texts.

ummarizing, critiquing, and

This option also differs
may be asked to writ

arann: st
Sr
Y
in

{ a ~~) I iit on ! SIaYout
Assessments or Analytical Valida , 2 result, f

“termine first what gr
employing this option,

aduates are

Some departments have required that their Students take Eng! 3880 (Writing for
Business and Industry) or Engl 3820 (Scientific Writing), both emphasizing
professional writing. Since students are required to take "at jeast tt ree hours of W-|
courses in their major those departments which Currently (as of Spring 1992) require
that their students take Eng! 3880 and £ g! 3820 may continue to us

e those courses
2s W-I courses, but must Gevelop a minimum of one other c

er Course Or Course section
from among their content-specific offerings.

The following professional writing assignments--or variations of them--would be
perfectly acceptable uses Of pr

Ofessional vriting in a W-l course.
Oo 1 professional report of
"preparation" writings, such
memos, letters, etc,

10-15 pages, in multiple drafts, and 2
as critiques, summaries, syntheses, lab r

OR, 4-5 short writing assignments (3-5 pages each), written in multiple
Crafts, including memos; letters: lab

a0 reports; Summaries, critiques, and
syntheses of reading assignments: or any other writing assignment of 3-5
Pages appropriate to a specific depart

‘ment or discipline

OR, any other comparable assignm

ents totaling approximately 20-25 Pages
of EDITED professicna! writing

MODEL THREE: Wel COURSES EMPHASIZING WRITING TO LEARN

Writing-to-learn Strategies focus 'y on the use of writing to help students

master course materials. This emphasis is appropriate in every Subject area,
including mathematics and science.

 
WAC Proposal

The following writing-to-learn assignments--or variations of them-- would be perfectly
acceptable uses of writing to learn in a W-| course.

othe use of a journal in which students write responses to various reading
assignments (50-60 pages of reflective writing checked periodically by the
instructor)

the use of note cards by students during class to record answers to various
kinds of questions the teacher asks (this must be done regularly to be
effective) in addition to out-of-class journal pieces written in response to
selected reading assignments

a split-entry journal in which students summarize a reading assignment on
one side of the page and write a personal response to the readir:g on th
other side of the page (50-60 pages of such reflection checked periodically
by the instructor)

OR, any other comparable set of assignments designed to systematically
employ writing as a method of reflecting on required material totalling 50-60
pages of unedited reflective writing

MODEL FOUR: W-I COURSES EMPHASIZING A COMBINATION OF WRITING APPROACHES

This option is the logical extension of the other three. It is possible for a faculty
member to combine academic, professional, and reflective (i.e., writing to jearn)
writing activities in a single course. The goal is to achieve an amount of writing
equivalent to the amount suggested above: 20-25 pages of edited professicnal or
academic writing or 50-60 pages of unedited reflective writing. Here are some
xamples of assignment combinations that would be perfectly acceptable in a W-!
course.

© 30 pages of journal writing in combination with 10-12 total pages of edited
academic or professional writing (see descriptions above)

OR, 15 pages of journal writing in combination with 15-18 total pages of
edited academic or professional writing

OR, 45 pages of journal writing in combination with 5-6 total pages of edite
academic or professional writing

OR, any other comparable assignments totaling approximately the
equivalent, as indicated in the three above e::amples, of 50-60 pages of
unedited fefiective writing or 20-25 pages of eaiied academic or professional
writing, or a combination of the two kinds of writing in proportion

MODEL FIVE: W-I COURSES EMPHASIZING COLLABORATION

By "collaboration* we mean the joining together of two or more faculty members in
the teaching of a single course. Precedent for collaboration can be found in ECU's

Honors Program and Women's Studies Program.

 
WAC Proposal

In the WAC Program, collaboration refers to (1) faculty from a department or unit in
the university team teaching a course in that department or unit with a member of
Department of English’s writing faculty or (2) a department other than the English
Department reserving a section of Engi 3880 or Eng! 3820 to be team taught with a
member of the English Department to majors in that department.

Arrangements must be made, of course, between the two departments and
approved by the WAC Committee.

ll. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

A. Courses currently offered that fall within one of the writing-intensive course
models listed above will be identified and listed as writing-intensive courses.

B. Additional course proposals that meet writing-intensive course models will be
approved when adhering to the following tenets:

dit farnrilhy

At least two semesters before the course will be offered for WI credit, faculty
should submit to the appropriate chair or dean proposals of courses or
sections of courses to be designated W-I.

The unit head should then recommend appropriate proposal(s) to the WAC
committee with a letter of support.

C. The WAC committee will consider new W-I course proposals submitted and notify

the appropriate offices of approved courses prior to the submission of those
roposals through the usual curriculum channels.

PHASE ONE (FALL1992-SUMMER 1993)

Students who enter the university during this phase of the program will not be
required to take any W-I courses although individual departments may encourage
students to take such courses. The WAC Committee will use this time to (1) identify
courses or sections of courses throughout the university that would already qualify
as W-l; (2) plan and conduct workshops for faculty interested in developing or
teaching W-I courses; (8) institute a formal system for approving new W-| courses
(4) continue working with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs to
build a sound, adequately funded administrative structure for the WAC program.

PHASE TWO (FALL 1993)

Students entering the university as freshmen in the fall of 1993 or any semester
thereafter will be required to take a minimum of 12 hours of W-I courses, including 6
hours of composition (English 1100 and 1200) and at least 3 hours of W-I courses in
their major, in order to graduate. Individual departments may require more than the

minimum number of W-I courses.

 
WAC Proposal

PHASE THREE (FALL AiOG5}

Transfer students entering the university in the fall of 1995 or any semester
thereafter will be subject to the W-I requirements described in Phase Two. Decisions
about whether a student should be given credit for a W-l course taken at another
institution will be made by the appropriate unit in accordance with procedures
currently used for approving other types of transfer credit, An on-campus writing
sample will be used, whenever necessary, to determ.ne a student's competence as
a writer and whether that student needs more work in writing.

lil. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

The WAC Committee will be made up of the director, who will serve as chair; the
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (or a representative); the Vice Chancellor for
Health Sciences (or a representative); the Director of Composition; the Director of
the Writing Center; and 8-10 faculty elected to serve on the committee by the Faculty
Senate. The committee will work closely with the Director of the WAC Program to
maintain the overall integrity of the program. To this end, the following will be
addressed.

o Recommend the policies governing the development and offering of
courses and seminars that are officially designated as writing-intensive

courses

Approve and recommend, through the university's normal channels
curriculum, changes in the WAC Program

Recommend semester course offerings to the Director of WAC Program

Advise the Director on all aspects of the Writing Across the Curriculum
Program

Once departments have designed courses or sections of courses following the
models, "Writing-Intensive Course Models," and have had proposals (a syllabus and
some brief description of writing assignments will suffice) for those courses or
sections of courses approved by the WAC Committee, the departments will have
officially become members of the ECU WAC Program.

To assure smooth and continuing operation of the WAC Program, faculty interested
in teaching a W-I course should attend a workshop on the WAC program. Such
workshops will be run at regular intervals publicized each semester by the Director
of WAG, in consultation with various other faculty members who have previously

taught W-I courses.

Additionally, the WAC Committee should conduct orientation meetings for faculty
participating in the WAC Program prior to the semester in which the W-I section is to
be taught. These orientation meetings will differ from workshops primarily in what
they hope to accomplish: WORKSHOPS will present faculty with current research
on writing and learning; ORIENTATION MEETINGS will provide historical and
pedagogical background to the ECU WAC Program. In both kinds of sessions,
encouragement will come from faculty who have taught W-I courses in the university.

 
WAC Proposal

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Committee on Writing Across the Curriculum will have an ongoing concern with
how the program is succeeding. To this end the committee will initiate a four-pDhase
method of assessment which will include 1) student evaluations of writing-intensive
courses, 2) assessment of student performance, 3) survey of student attitudes
toward the WAC Program, and 4) survey of faculty satisfaction with the WAC
Program. Additionally, to assess achievement in writing, the committee will design
and implement experimental research of selected courses or sections taught by
professors interested in participating in such studies. The intent is to fund four such
assessment projects per year. Furthermore, eae nents will be encouraged to
develop their own program assessment efforts p larly after the initial three years
of the WAC program.

V. PROGRAMS IN SUPPORT OF W-

h nl! ar ra r wed it re + \
The following are programs currently in place that will rt the writing across the
fe
w

hte VY 6! Vy!
urriculum program.

SUPPORT PROGRAM ONE: THE WRITING CENTER

ee oY

or majors to the Writing
ng students in writing, the

students from their *home*

A department may assign one of its graduate assist tants
Center where, after receiving training in methods cf tut
rk Vv

tutors will be available during specified hours to werk wit!
departments.

Ori
jith s

SUPPORT PROGRAM TWO: WRITER'S WORKBENCH

mec

This computerized style analyzer can be used to assist students in the drafting of
academic or professional documents.

WACPRO4.DOC