Read an Excerpt
Assignments Across the Curriculum
A National Study of College Writing
By Dan Melzer University Press of Colorado
Copyright © 2014 the University Press of Colorado
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-87421-940-1
CHAPTER 1
A Panoramic View of College Writing
In "The Future of Writing Across the Curriculum: Consensus and Research," Chris Anson (1993) traces the history of research in Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC), from early evidence of writing across disciplines that was mostly anecdotal to current research that emphasizes case study and ethnographic methods. Anson approves of the recent qualitative WAC research that has moved beyond "anecdotes, testimonies, and reports from colleagues," but he also calls for more large-scale research into disciplinary writing (xvi). Elsewhere Anson (1988) has argued for "larger scale measures of belief and practice" (24) that will explore questions such as, "What does it mean to write in a particular academic discipline? How do the criteria for good writing differ among diverse disciplines? What sorts of instructional beliefs about writing do scholars in different academic disciplines hold?" (3).
Some of the richest WAC research exploring Anson's questions has come from ethnographic studies of students writing in a course or courses, such as Anne Herrington's (1985) "Writing in Academic Settings: A Study of the Contexts for Writing in Two College Chemical Engineering Classes," Lucille Parkinson McCarthy's (1987) "A Stranger in Strange Lands," and McCarthy and Barbara Walvoord's Thinking and Writing in College (Walvoord and McCarthy 1991). Even more extensive are recent longitudinal studies of college student writers, such as Marilyn Sternglass's (1997)Time to Know Them, Anne Herrington and Marcia Curtis's Persons in Process (Herrington and Curtis 2000), Lee Ann Caroll's (2002)Rehearsing New Roles, Anne Beaufort's (2007)College Writing and Beyond, and studies conducted by Nancy Sommers and Laura Saltz at Harvard (Sommers and Saltz 2004) and Jenn Fishman et al. (2005) at Stanford. These researchers followed a student or a group of students from their first year of college to graduation and beyond, using ethnographic methods to discuss everything from instructors' expectations for writing and students' writing processes, to relationships between composing and contextual factors such as race, class, and gender.
Ethnographic research into writing in the disciplines, however, hasn't provided a large-scale look at college writing in the United States. Other than a handful of researchers in the 1980s who conducted surveys or collected undergraduate assignments from faculty at a single institution or a small group of institutions (Bridgeman and Carlson 1984; Eblen 1983; Harris and Hult 1985; Horowitz 1986; Rose 1983), large-scale research into college writing that could serve as a complement to naturalistic studies has been rare in the field of composition. James Britton and his research team's seminal study of 2,122 pieces of student writing from sixty-five British secondary schools, reported in The Development of Writing Abilities (11 — 18), has yet to be replicated at the college level (Britton et al. 1975). To use a film analogy, from the outstanding work of ethnographers of writing in the disciplines we have the close-up shot (studies of students' writing in a class or classes in the disciplines) and the mid-range shot (longitudinal studies at single institutions). What this book attempts to provide is the shot that has been neglected in composition research — the panorama.
Through a study of 2,101 writing assignments across disciplines in 100 American postsecondary institutions, I reveal patterns in the rhetorical situations, genres, and discourse communities of college writing that complement, confirm, and sometimes complicate the data from ethnographic research. Although this study sacrifices the pedagogical context and "thick description" (Geertz 1973) of ethnographic research (the panoramic view by its nature does not capture the level of detail of the close up shot), it provides what ethnographic research cannot — the shot that pans wide enough that larger patterns in the landscape are revealed. These larger patterns concerning college writing in the United States are of interest to WAC practitioners working with faculty across disciplines, writing center coordinators and tutors working with students who bring assignments to their writing centers from a variety of fields, composition program administrators and first-year writing instructors who are interested in preparing students for college writing, and high school teachers looking to create a bridge between high school and college writing. In order to explore disciplinary writing on a larger scale than ethnography, and provide a view of the kinds of patterns in the landscape that will have relevance to all of these various stakeholders in academic literacies, I collected and analyzed one of the fundamental pieces of classroom discourse: writing assignments.
What Writing Assignments Tell Us about College Writing
Writing assignments are revealing classroom artifacts. Instructors' writing assignments say a great deal about their goals and values, as well as the goals and values of their disciplines. Writing assignments are a rich source of information about the rhetorical contexts of writing across the curriculum — a source that few composition researchers have made the focus of significant study. Consider, for example, the following assignment from a European history course at Cornell University:
Essay 2: Documentary Analysis
This assignment requires you to play the detective, combining textual sources for clues and evidence to form a reconstruction of past events. If you took A.P. history courses in high school, you may recall doing similar document-based questions.
In a tight, well-argued essay of two to four pages, identify and assess the historical significance of the documents in one of the four sets I have given you.
You bring to this assignment a limited body of outside knowledge gained from our readings, class discussions, and videos. Make the most of this contextual knowledge when interpreting your sources.
Questions to consider when planning your essay:
• What do the documents reveal about the author and his audience?
• Why were they written?
• Can you discern the author's motivation and tone?
• Does the genre make a difference in your interpretation?
• How do the documents fit in both their immediate and greater historical contexts?
• Do your documents support or contradict what other sources have told you?
• Is there a contrast between documents within your set?
• What is not said, but implied?
• What is left out? (As a historian, you should always look for what is not said, and ask yourself what the omission signifies.)
Because of the nature of the assignment, you will probably not have an overarching thesis, as you would in most papers. Instead, your essay will consist of two parts: the IDENTIFICATION and INTERPRETATION sections.
Even though this assignment is brief, it defines important rhetorical contexts for writing, such as purpose, audience, and genre. The assignment requires "analysis" and "interpretation," and both thinking strategies are described in ways that are specific to the discourse community of historians. Although the primary audience for the assignment is the teacher, the implied audience can be seen as fellow historians, since students are asked to play the role of discourse community insiders ("As a historian, you should always look for what is not said, and ask yourself what the omission signifies"). The genre of the assignment is also associated with the work of historians, and the instructor reminds students throughout the assignment that a documentary analysis is more than just a template: it's a fundamental part of the work of historians. What is valued in this genre, and in this instructor's notion of the work of historians, is clear from the questions students should consider when planning their essays: quality of analysis, integration of contextual knowledge, and close and careful interpretation.
I would argue that writing assignments like the documentary analysis above are as rich a source of data about college writing as instructor comments or student papers, and Assignments across the Curriculum provides a macro-level view of this fundamental classroom artifact. To frame the analysis of the 2,101 writing assignments in the data, I look at the rhetorical situation presented in each assignment (the purposes and audiences), the genres of the assignments, and what these assignments reveal about the discourse communities in which they are situated. The collection of writing assignments tell a complex story of college writing — one that is sometimes disheartening, sometimes encouraging, and hopefully always instructive to composition instructors, writing center tutors, and those involved in WAC initiatives. It's a story about college writing in the United States that provides arguments for both the continued need for campus WAC efforts as well as the positive influence the WAC movement has had on college writing on campuses where WAC has truly taken root.
The Research Design
In order to provide a panoramic view of college writing in the United States, Assignments across the Curriculum emulates the scope of James Britton and his research team's landmark study (Britton et al. 1975). However, as a single researcher I knew it would be too burdensome to rely on surveying hundreds of instructors or trying to contact instructors individually. The Internet, and the easy access it offers to instructors' writing assignments, provided the solution. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to gather a collection of artifacts of writing across the curriculum that equaled the sample size of that of Britton's research team. From 1999 to 2007, I collected 2,101 writing assignments from 100 postsecondary institutions across the United States. Because the assignments were collected from the Internet, the research has one important advantage over the surveys of writing across disciplines mentioned earlier. Chris Anson (1988) says of these WAC surveys, "Because most surveys are responded to by choice, even a relatively good return may still represent a skewed sample" (12). As Anson points out, instructors filling out these surveys may exaggerate the importance of writing or the amount of writing in their classes, either to put themselves in a positive light or in an attempt to give the researchers what the instructor thinks they want.
Despite the advantage of the ability to collect a large amount of writing assignments without having to ask for samples from instructors, conducting research via the Internet comes with its own set of problems. Although the assignments I collected were not given voluntarily, the fact that instructors published their assignments on the Internet means they were aware of at least the possibility of a more public audience. Instructors who create their own class websites could be considered "early adopters" of technology, and it's possible that their assignments are fuller or more explicitly laid out than the assignments of instructors who are not using websites. Despite these problems inherent in my study, the advantages of studying a large sample of assignments anonymously outweigh the disadvantages of collecting data from the Internet.
It's important to emphasize that although the assignments in this study were collected from course websites, none of the courses were delivered entirely online. In order to aim for a random and geographically disperse sample, I visited institutional websites through an index of the home pages of accredited colleges in the United States, found at www.utexas.edu/world/univ/. I entered the term "syllabus" in each institution's search engine and used the first course syllabus that appeared in each of the four categories of natural sciences, social sciences, business, and humanities. An even number of institutions were surveyed in four categories based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education: doctoral/research universities, master's comprehensive colleges, baccalaureate colleges, and two-year A.A. colleges (see appendix A for a list of institutions surveyed). In addition to collecting writing assignments, I gathered other online course materials, such as course descriptions, rubrics, writing guides, etc.
Assignments across the Curriculum meets the bar set by Britton's large-scale research, but one cannot make generalizations about all of college writing in the United States from my sample. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were approximately 4,300 US degree-granting postsecondary institutions in 2006 — 2007, the same time this study was being researched. This means that, with a 95 percent confidence level and 5 percent margin of error, a researcher would need to collect writing assignments from approximately 350 institutions — a difficult task for a team of researchers, much less a single researcher. Although I won't make claims from my sample about all college writing in the United States, I do feel that the prominence of certain patterns in my study can help us make stronger hypotheses about the purposes, audiences, and genres of college writing than we can make with data from a single institution or a handful of institutions. These patterns are discussed through a framework that begins with the rhetorical situations of the assignments — the purposes and audiences — and expands to include the genres of the assignments and the assignments' discourse community contexts.
Rhetorical Situation, Genre, and Discourse Community: A Framework for Analyzing Academic Discourse
Given the desire to emulate the scope of James Britton et al.'s (1975) study, I naturally used Britton's influential taxonomy of functions and audiences as one tool for analyzing the assignments collected. Britton's taxonomy was appealing in part because I wished to replicate Britton's work, applying his taxonomy to writing assignments rather than student writing, but still focusing like Britton did on purposes and audiences for writing. Britton's function and audience categories — and his divisions of writing functions into transactional, poetic, and expressive — are still used in WAC scholarship and faculty development workshops. For example, Britton's taxonomy is used throughout John Bean's (2011)Engaging Ideas, arguably the most popular WAC faculty development guidebook, and his taxonomy is referenced in a collection of essays discussing the future of WAC, WAC for the New Millennium. Drawing on Britton's taxonomy of discourse gives my research both a connection to the seminal work of the past and a usefulness in the present. Although this study draws heavily on Britton's taxonomy, the recent scholarship in genre and discourse studies has helped me expand upon Britton's taxonomy and present what I argue is a richer way of thinking about WAC — by moving beyond Britton's sole focus on the rhetorical situation of function and audience. Britton and his team conducted their research prior to the growth of genre and discourse studies, and any current analysis of college literacy should include these added dimensions. Carol Berkenkotter and Thomas Huckin argue, "One way to study the textual character of disciplinary communication is to examine both the situated actions of writers, and the communicative systems in which disciplinary actors participate" (Berkenkotter and Huckin 1994, ix). A framework of rhetorical situation, genre, and discourse community accounts for the "situated action of writers," the repeated and typified actions, and the disciplinary contexts that shape rhetorical situations.
Anne Beaufort's model of academic ways of knowing has been especially useful to me in shaping a framework that moves beyond Britton's taxonomy. Based on her longitudinal study of a student writing in college and the workplace, Beaufort (2007) created a model of five overlapping domains of situated writing knowledge: discourse community knowledge, subject matter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing process knowledge. Britton's taxonomy is useful in analyzing the rhetorical knowledge domain of writing assignments, but I also wanted to look at other domains discussed by Beaufort, especially genre and discourse community knowledge, which I saw as helpful additions to Britton's discourse taxonomy. Thus, in addition to the rhetorical situations of this study's writing assignments, I consider groups of assignments that ask students to respond in similar ways to rhetorical situations — "genres." I also consider the social context in which those genres operate — the discourse communities of different academic disciplines. Figure 1.1 provides a visual representation of this expanded framework for thinking about academic discourse. This framework is a tool for analyzing academic discourse, but it may also be useful in designing composition courses and WAC workshops, as I discuss in chapter 6. In the rest of this section, I discuss this framework of rhetorical situation, genre, and discourse community.
Rhetorical Situation: The Purposes and Audiences of College Writing
James Britton's multidimensional taxonomy for analyzing written discourse — familiar to many readers of this book — divides writing into three functions, which roughly correspond to different points on the rhetorical triangle: composer (the expressive function), text (the poetic function), and audience (the transactional function). Expressive writing is informal and exploratory, with the self as audience. Poetic writing is imaginative, with a focus on the text as art form. The goal of transactional writing is to transact with an audience, and Britton further divides this function into writing that informs (informative) and writing that persuades (conative).
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Assignments Across the Curriculum by Dan Melzer. Copyright © 2014 the University Press of Colorado. Excerpted by permission of University Press of Colorado.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
