JAC Volume 4

Editor:
Tim D. P. Lally

Back to Vol. 4 ToC

Writing Across-the-Curriculum Programs Theory and Practice:A Selected Bibliography

C. W. Griffin

• Bailey, Richard W. “Writing Across the Curriculum: The British Approach,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia L. Stock. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 24-32.
  
  Describes the beginning of writing across the curriculum in Great Britain.

• Baker, Sheridan. “Writing as Learning,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia L. Stock. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 24-32.
  
  Writing is a way of discovering and maturing—a way of realizing ideas and confirming these realizations.

• Britton, James. “Language and Learning Across the Curriculum,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia L. Stock. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 221-224.
  
  A succinct summary of Britton’s theories of writing as learning.

• Connelly, Peter J., and Donald C. Irving. “Composition in the Liberal Arts: A Shared Responsibility.” College English, 37 (March, 1976), 668-670.
  
  Description of an early series of WAC seminars held for faculty at Grinnell College.

• Emig, Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” College Composition and Communication, 28 (May, 1977), 122-128.
  
  The earliest major article describing the ways in which writing “represents a unique mode of learning.”

• Forman, Janis. “Notes Toward Writing Across the Curriculum: Some Collaborative Efforts.” Journal of Basic Writing (Spring/Summer, 1980), 12-21.
  
  Describes an experimental course called The Composing Process offered first in the fall of 1979 at Goucher College. By preparing students to assist others in preparing papers done outside of English, this course was to become the center of the new WAC program at Goucher.

• Freisinger, Randall. “Cross-Disciplinary Writing Programs: Beginnings,” in Language Connections: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, eds. Toby Fulwiler and Art Young. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1982, 3-13.
  
  Discussion of the three premises behind Michigan Tech’s WAC program: “(1) writing promotes learning; (2) writing is a complex developmental process; and (3) the universe of discourse includes a broad range of writing functions and audiences.”

• Freisinger, Randall. “Cross-Disciplinary Writing Workshops: Theory and Practice.” College English, 42 (October, 1980), 154-166.
  
  A detailed rationale for WAC programs and a description, in particular, of the program at Michigan Technological University.

• Freisinger, Randall, and Bruce Petersen. “Writing across the Curriculum: A Theoretical Background.” fforum, 2 (Winter 1981), 65-67, 92.
  
  Surveys essential literature on writing across the curriculum and sets forth the basic theoretical premises for developing a program.

• Fulwiler, Toby. “How Well Does Writing Across the Curriculum Work?” College English, 46 (February, 1984), 113-125.
  
  Describes lessons learned in overseeing a WAC program and conducting faculty workshops for six years. Problems included resistance of some participants to the workshop process, skepticism from teachers of English and philosophy, difficulties of requiring writing in large classes and in using peer review. Benefits included growth of collegial interactions, new sense of the importance of writing across the campus, increased confidence of participants in their own writing abilities, changes in teaching methods, and increased publications.

• Fulwiler, Toby. “Showing, Not Telling, at a Faculty Workshop.” College English, 43 (January, 1981), 55-63.
  
  Describes a variety of activities that form the basis for WAC workshops held at Michigan Technological University. A practical, inductive approach to faculty workshops, in which discussions of theory follow from various writing and evaluation activities.

• Fulwiler, Toby. “Why We Teach Writing in the First Place,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia L. Stock. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 273-286.
  
  We should use writing to develop critical, independent thinking, both in the composition classroom and across the curriculum.

• Fulwiler, Toby. “Writing across the Curriculum at Michigan Tech.” Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 4 (Spring, 1981), 15-20.
  
  A detailed description of the program at Michigan Tech, especially helpful because it describes in detail the objectives, schedule, and activities of the faculty workshops conducted by Fulwiler and his colleagues.

• Fulwiler, Toby. “Writing: An Act of Cognition,” in Teaching Writing in all Disciplines, ed. C. Williams Griffin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982, 15-26.
  
  A detailed explanation of the way students learn through writing, containing numerous references to important theorists and researchers.

• Gordon, Joseph W., and Linda H. Peterson. “Writing at Yale: Past and Present.” ADE Bulletin, 71 (Spring, 1982), 10-14.
  
  Describes the development of Yale’s present writing program, consisting of four components: (1) six sequences of freshman writing; (2) writing intensive courses supported by teaching fellows; (3) small seminars in writing offered by various departments for juniors and seniors; and (4) tutorials in writing located in the residential colleges.

• Graham, Joan. “What Works: The Problems and Rewards of Cross-Curriculum Writing Programs,” in Current Issues in Higher Education, ed. Barbara Leigh Smith. Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1983-84, #3, 16-26.
  
  Distinguishes between two approaches to writing across the curriculum: “Either faculty in English give more attention to the subjects students study, or faculty in departments other than English give more attention to writing.” Then proceeds to describe in detail writing workshops for faculty, tutorials in writing, and programs that link a writing course and a content course. Refers to programs at colleges such as Yale, Michigan Tech, Lewis and Clark, Hunter, California State at San Bernardino, etc.

• Hammond, Eugene. “Freshman Composition-Junior Composition: Does Co-ordination Mean Sub-ordination?” College Composition and Communication, 35 (May, 1984), 217- 221.
  
  Distinguishes between the aims of freshman and junior courses in composition at the University of Maryland and shows how the freshman program prepares students for the junior course.

• Hating-Smith, Tori. A Guide to Writing Programs. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1984.
  
  Based on a recent survey, Professor Haring-Smith describes WAC programs across the country.

• Hartman, Joan E. ‘Writing across the Curriculum: Ease and Dis-ease in Zion.” ADE Bulletin, 74 (Spring, 1983), 37-43.
  
  A detailed and realistic description of the problems encountered and successes achieved in a year-long faculty seminar.

• Herrington, Anne J. “Writing to Learn: Writing across the Disciplines.” College English, 43 (April, 1981), 379-387.
  
  Describes WAC workshops funded by FIPSE held at Johnson State College. Shows how faculty can be helped to develop and sequence effective writing assignments.

• Kinneavy, James L. “Writing Across the Curriculum,” in Profession 83, Selected Articles from the Bulletins of the Association of Departments of English and the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. New York: Modern Language Association, 1983, 13-20.
  
  Analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of two approaches to writing across the curriculum: (1) content area courses taught by specialists within particular disciplines and (2) writing courses in a variety of areas taught by members of the English Department. Seems to favor the second approach, because “forcing all students of the college to speak about their specialities to the uninformed generalist, imposes a common language on the university community. It reunites the fragmented ‘pluraversity’ of the twentieth century into a linguistic university.”

• Knoblauch, C. H. and Lil Brannon. “Writing as Learning Through The Curriculum.” College English, 45 (September, 1983), 465-474.
  
  Claims that their “review of high-school and college programs offering cross-disciplinary writing shows the greater number of them to be little more than ‘grammar across the curriculum’ or ‘packaging information across the curriculum.’” Says that such programs are based on an erroneous assumption that knowledge is stable and bounded, while they should be based on the notion that “knowing is an activity . . . the process of an individual mind making meaning from the materials of its experience.” But see the entry under McLeod, Susan, below.

• Lamb, Catherine E. “Initiating Change as a Writing Consultant.” College English, 45 (March, 1983), 296-300.
  
  Briefly describes her experiences as a part-time writing consultant for her colleagues at Albion College for a year.

• Larson, Richard L., with Eve Zarin and Carol Sicherman. Writing in the Academic and Professional Disciplines: A Manual for Faculty. New York: Herbert H. Lehman College, City University of New York, 1983.
  
  A short guide for faculty outside of English who wish to encourage student writing. Especially helpful in its specific formulations of the ways in which writing is learning and in its practical suggestions for responding to and evaluating student writing.

• Maimon, Elaine P. “Cinderella to Hercules: Demythologizing Composition Across the Curriculum.” Journal of Basic Writing (Spring/Summer, 1980), 3-11.
  
  Describes the ways in which English teachers who want to establish an institution-wide WAC program might dispel myths and misconceptions about the teaching of writing: that writing is defined strictly in terms of surface features, that commitment to writing across the university may expand the English department disproportionately, that people outside of English know little about good writing, and that all writing must be graded.

• Maimon, Elaine P., et al. Readings in the Arts and Sciences. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984.
  
  A collection of readings and exercises. Readings are drawn from textbooks and primary documents in the arts and humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences.

• Maimon, Elaine P. “Writing in all the Arts and Sciences: Getting Started and Gaining Momentum.” Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 4 (Spring, 1981), 9-13.
  
  A successful WAC program should have two components: (1) a freshman composition course that emphasizes process and introduces students to a variety of procedures in writing; (2) instructors in every department who make writing an inevitable part of every teaching and learning day. Offers a set of suggestions for bringing this about.

• Maimon, Elaine P. “Writing in the Total Curriculum at Beaver College.” CEA Forum (December, 1979), 7-10.
  
  Describes the program at Beaver College: a cross-disciplinary course in freshman composition, a writing center, writing required in all college courses, course clusters, and advanced writing courses offered by the English department.

• Maimon, Elaine P., et al. Writing in the Arts and Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1981.
  
  A text that introduces students to techniques for writing in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.

• McLeod, Susan H. “Letter,” in “Comment and Response,” College English, 46 (October, 1984), 615-617.
  
  Claims that her examination of four WAC programs shows that all, contrary to what Knoblauch and Brannon say above, stress writing as learning.

• Moss, Andrew, and Carol Holder. Improving Student Writing: A Guidebook for Faculty in All Disciplines. Pomona, Calif.: California State Polytechnic University, 1982.
  
  This guide helps faculty design effective assignments and essay exams, integrate reading and writing, and evaluate students’ papers. Especially helpful are the examples of successful assignments taken from a variety of disciplines, specific suggestions for helping students research, plan, and draft papers, and examples of actual on-the-job writing tasks.

• Nochimson, Martha. “Writing Instruction Across the Curriculum: Two Programs.” Journal of Basic Writing. (Spring/Summer, 1980), 22-35.
  
  Describes two programs: one at the College of New Rochelle centered around workshops for faculty and one at Drew University, in which faculty participate in a series of workshops and then teach a freshman seminar that combines writing instruction with instruction in their own discipline.

• Odell, Lee. “How English Teachers Can Help Their Colleagues Teach Writing,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia L. Stock. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 269-273.
  
  We in English need to help colleagues categorize error, become aware of the range of assignments they can make, be more sensitive to audiences for student writing, and recognize the intellectual demands of specific assignments.

• Odell, Lee. “The Process of Writing and the Process of Learning.” College Composition and Communication, 31 (February, 1980), 42-50.
  
  A call for collaboration with colleagues in other disciplines and a brief analysis of present work on the composing process.

• Peters, Laurence. “Writing across the Curriculum: Across the U.S.,” in Writing to Learn: Essays and Reflections on Writing Across the Curriculum, ed. Christopher Thaiss. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1983, 9-24.
  
  Based on a survey of WAC programs across the U. S., this article briefly describes how writing across the curriculum developed in Great Britain and the U. S. and analyzes twomajor design models for WAC programs: the Interdisciplinary model followed by schools such as Beaver College; and the Writing-in-the-Disciplines model followed by the University of Michigan and others.

• Raimes, Ann. “Writing and Learning across the Curriculum: The Experience of a Faculty Seminar.” College English, 41 (March, 1980), 797-801.
  
  Describes a series of WAC seminars held during the academic year at Hunter College. Especially useful as an alternative to intensive summer seminars held at other universities.

• Rose, Mike. “When Faculty Talk about Writing.” College English, 41 (November, 1979), 272-279.
  
  Results of a day-and-a-half writing conference held at UCLA. The conference focused on how writing is evaluated in different disciplines and on how writing instruction should be organized at a large university. Recommends reward for writing research and instruction, development of new writing curricula, and new evaluation schemes.

• Stock, Patricia L. “A comprehensive Literacy Program: The English Composition Board,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia Stock. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 85-90.
  
  Describes the development of the seven-part writing program at the University of Michigan.

• Walter, James. “Comment and Response.” College English, 46 (April, 1984), 403-405.
  
  Describes an experiment linking a humanities course with a freshman composition course.

• Walvoord, Barbara E. Fassler. Helping Students Write Well: A Guide for Teachers in All Disciplines. New York: Modern Language Association, 1982.
  
  A detailed guide for teachers in all disciplines who want to help their students improve writing. Shows teachers how to incorporate writing in their courses, make effective writing assignments, respond to student writing, and help students with focus, organization, development, and style.

• Walvoord, Barbara Fassler, and Hoke L. Smith. “Coaching the Process of Writing,” in Teaching Writing in All Disciplines, ed. C. Williams Griffin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982,3-14.
  
  A review of writing process research and its implications for higher education. An excellent document for faculty who want a quick overview of recent research.

• Weiss, Robert, and Michael Peich. “Faculty Attitude Change in a Cross-Disciplinary Writing Workshop.” College Composition and Communication, 31 (February, 1980), 33-41.
  
  Describes the day-today activities of a faculty writing workshop conducted at West Chester State College. In contrast to the experience of Joan Hartman described above, these authors talk about the “conversion experience” of participants.

• Weiss, Robert H., and S. A. Walters. “Research on Writing and Learning: Some Effects of Learning-Centered Writing in Five Subject Areas." Paper presented to NCTE, San Francisco, CA, 1979.
  
  One of the few studies evaluating the effect of a WAC program. In a carefully designed experiment, these researchers were not able to establish that expressive writing in a variety of subject areas for a semester improves student writing, lessens writing anxiety, or helps students learn subject matter. They did establish that writing helps students perceive ideas more clearly.

• Young, Art. "Value and Purpose in Writing,” in fforum: Essays on Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, ed. Patricia Stock. New York: Boynton/Cook, 1983, 240-245.
  
  This author assigns tasks that require students to use writing to communicate information, to learn about certain subjects, to express themselves and order their experience, and to assess values in relation to material they are studying.