De
we

 

Writing Across the Curriculum:

Pragmatists say we should evaluate deeds, not
words, and judge ideas by how they work, rather than
by how well they look on paper.

Many sadder-but-wiser people have failed to follow
this advice when considering the development of a
writing-across-the-curriculum program. They learned
the hard way what David Russel’s research revealed:
“Revival meeting or consciousness-raising efforts,
however useful as springboards, cannot sustain interest
after founders have gone... WAC must be part of an
institution-wide plan with realistic goals and clear steps
marked out toward them.”

So, you ask, “What’s the solution? How do we add
writing across the curriculum without becoming
composition teachers and burying ourselves in an
avalanche of paper grading?”

The simple approach is often the best. I think
Monroe County Community College (MCCC) has de-
veloped a program that works. And it works for
everyone involved: students and faculty.

MCCC had the “useful springboards’”—retreats,
workshops, seminars. They were interesting and
helpful, but not absolutely necessary. These sessions
encouraged faculty in the disciplines to develop non-
graded, writing-to-learn activities. However, we have
taken our WAC approach one important step beyond
the workshop stage. When our instructors decide to
transform the expressive, exploratory writing activities
into transactional, graded writing, we offer them
assistance. This, after all, is the part of the process that
instructors find most frustrating—evaluating hastily
prepared, poorly conceived, last-minute writing.

We have a way to improve the quality of instruction
without placing a heavy burden on our faculty. We
have no panacea, but we do offer valuable assistance at
a crucial point in the writing process.

Writing Fellows Program

MCCC has brought the Writing Fellows program—
which began a few years ago at Brown University—to
our campus. Here, very briefly, is how it works.

We have an advanced composition class—open to
only a few of our best students. These students, good

 

VOLUME XII, NUMBER 2

4% INNOVATION ABSTRACTS

PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
WITH SUPPORT FROM THE W. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION AND THE SID W. RICHARDSON FOUNDATION

  

“What's In It for Me?”

writers before taking the class, spend a semester becom-
ing better writers and becoming writing consultants for
their fellow students. These writing fellows work ina
writing center—available to all students in all courses
on campus—and each is also assigned to work with
students in one class across the disciplines. For this
assigned class, our writing fellows look at the early
drafts of students’ themes. They take each paper home,
prepare a written commentary, and mect with the
student writer to discuss the first draft. After that, the
student writer has the opportunity to revise the draft
and submit both drafts and the writing fellows’ com-
mentary to the instructor. Everyone in the “fellowed”
classes must participate.

Last semester our “fellowed” classes included:
Nursing Seminar, Political Science, Geometrical Draft-
ing, Engineering Physics, Organic Chemistry, Respira-
tory Therapy, Logic, Western Philosophy, Basic Music
for Classroom Teachers, General Physics, Children’s
Literature, Speech, Exploring Teaching, Poetry and
Drama, Art History, Sociology, and Psychology. The
instructors for these classes knew they were getting a
second draft that had received the attention of a capable
and concerned student tutor. (Instructors for other
classes were also encouraged to require students to take
first drafts to the Writing Center.) At the end of the
year, we surveyed the students and faculty involved
with the Writing Fellows Program.

Evaluation: Students With Writing Fellows

More than 97 percent of these students found their
work with the writing fellows to be helpful. When you
consider that these students were required to do more
than students might have done in past semesters (write
two drafts of each paper and meet with their writing
fellows to discuss cach), the approval rate is encourag-
ing.

Some of the comments from these surveys are
revealing: “I was pleased to find at MCCC the individ-
ual attention given to the students.” “It helps to get an
unbiased opinion of one’s work before the professor
sees it.” “It is helpful to know that I had somewhere to
go to get help with questions and problems.”

 

Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin

; CG) THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
WO)

EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712

1]