Undergraduate Writing Instruction

The African American Advisory Council would want to insure that Transformations processes including consolidations and workforce reductions would not erode The University of Arizona's efforts to recruit and retain diverse faculty, students, and staff.

As a visiting professor, with four decades of experience elsewhere in university writing program administration and evaluation, I am surprised to see how seriously uninformed and out of date the proposal is. It is rather like a proposal to dismember the chemistry department because it doesn't teach alchemy well, or to abolish astronomy since astrologers wear funny hats. The development of 65 Ph.D. programs in rhetoric and composition over the last generation in the United States is based in part on an understanding that writing is based on rhetoric, a discipline old when Aristotle wrote, and valued by serious thinkers throughout history. Writing is difficult because it is thinking made visible. Further, as everyone who asks for student writing knows, writing is a student's chief means of learning. The proposers seem to know nothing of rhetoric or pedagogy. The major value of the proposal has been to foster the intelligent discussion of the centrality and effectiveness of the UA writing program (a recognized national model) for the mission of this great university.

As a linguist, I occasionally encounter the naïve believe that anyone can effectively teach their native language. In fact, the field of second language acquisition and teaching, represented at the University of Arizona by the SLAT Ph.D. Program, has produced a massive body of research showing that some methods of language teaching are far more effective than others. A similar situation obtains in the field of composition. Research in this field has dramatically changed and continues to improve the teaching of writing. This field is represented at the University of Arizona by our nationally ranked program in Rhetoric, Composition, and the Teaching of English in the English Department, whose faculty members administer and support the First Year Composition Program. These scholars conduct an orientation program for GAT writing instructors, participate in weekly seminars for the instructors, and contribute to the program in many other ways. Proposing to take the responsibility for writing instruction away from these specialists and turn it over to scholars in other disciplines is like proposing to turn the teaching of German over to faculty and students on campus who happen to speak German.

Scholars of writing instruction agree on two basic principles that the proposed program violates. First, students cannot learn to write by attending lectures, which the proposed 60 student classes would amount to. Writing is learned in the same way that other skills are learned, by doing it under the mentorship of a trained teacher. The situation is similar in teaching science. Students learn phonetic analysis by hands-on experience in a phonetics lab under the supervision of a phonetician who provides a lot of individual attention. The equivalent in teaching writing is the small class combined with the individual writing conference, both features of the present program. It is difficult to see how writing conferences would be possible in a class of 60 students. The second principle is that writing must be taught as a holistic process, not as a series of lessons on grammar, organization, critical thinking, etc. The writing process involves prewriting activities where students choose and narrow a topic, writing a draft that is commented on by the instructor and other students, revising the draft and, finally, focusing on surface grammatical features. This process is the basis of practically all writing instruction at American Universities, but it is not possible in classes of 60 students, especially when taught by instructors and TAs who are not writing specialists. A corollary of this principle, also supported by research, is that students learn to correct problems of grammar, spelling, and punctuation when these problems emerge in their own writing involving topics that they are interested in and committed to. Grading writing mainly on the basis of grammar and other surface features (as proposed in the white paper) causes students to view writing as a mechanical rather than a meaningful activity and to develop an artificial and stilted style that has been called “Engfish” in the composition literature.

Small classes that provide individual attention are the best way to teach writing, and the best way to enculturate new students into the university. They should not be eliminated.

Sadly, this proposal dismisses the goal of a shared foundation in college level writing that focuses on analytical ability, critical thinking, and intellectual independence. In Composition, students learn adaptable skills in writing that they need in all disciplines and in life. Imagine doing away with basic math-- making math specific courses: math for theater, math for psychology, math for family studies... and presuming these courses (taught en masse by template) would offer an adequate foundation in math.
The comment that students often have to unlearn what Composition teaches in their specific disciplines should be an endorsement of our Writing Program-- students should anticipate and be able to recognize and adapt to new writing situations with distinct demands, not just at the university but well beyond. To specify skills to a given subject and to focus on the mechanical does not teach skills can transcend narrow task-work. The Graduate Writing Institute (WSIP) proves a solid model for a successful interdisciplinary, high-level, field-specific writing program. The key to its success comes from integrating students from separate fields and from very small class sizes, small workshops, and lots of personal attention to absolutely individual writing projects. Like grammar check, Dr. Plante's proposed course of study would only work if students already knew how to evaluate its accuracy. For that, they need a broader foundation in the skills Composition teaches-- close reading, analysis, critical thinking, independent, original problem solving and argumentation for starters. No template will teach the importance of clarity and eloquence of expression or the ability of assess and address a variety of audiences for a variety of purposes.

Dr. Plante's proposal fails to consider the need aspiring professionals in every discipline have for flexible, adaptable writing skills.To assume that a scientist who masters conventions of a particular journal writing style will have the foundational skills to adapt to other writing projects he/she will inevitably face, sooner or later, is absurd and wrong. Dr. Plante's proposal is extreme and presupposes a foundational level of writing that incoming students, even the very best of them, generally do not have. If we abolish composition, the costs to students' educationally and to the credibility of our university will be vast.

Imagine such a proposal to eliminate first-year math, to make the subject of math major-specific...math for theater, math for psychology, math for family studies, math for language arts...No. Basic math as an undergraduate requirement is predicated on the belief that all college students need a foundation, an adaptable set of basic skills.

University and college students should be flexible and skilled enough as writers to adapt from one set of conventions and standards to another; Composition offers students a foundation critical undergraduate education. The comment that students complain they have to unlearn certain things from English Comp. when they get to their majors should help support the Writing Program. Students need to be able to unlearn, relearn, expect different writing situations will have their own conventions and adapt.

The Graduate Writing Institute that Donna Rabuck from Writing Skills runs every summer invites Masters and PhD candidates from all disciplines to workshops and tutoring in a condensed five week program. The success of the project comes from two key features-- the first is that students learn to read and respond to writing outside their specified fields. This teaches them both what is distinct about field specific writing and what is universal to all writing, the need for clarity of expression, organization, and inclusion of appropriate content. Students learn as much if not more by working outside their own programs. The second thing students receive is small group and individual feedback, both critical to the improvement of writing. Classes of sixty writing students with one TA, as proposed by Plante, will not teach students to think or to write. If the teaching of writing can really be reduced to field specific grammar and formatting, surely a computer program can be designed to get around humans teaching writing as subject, like grammar check.

The financial bottom line is clearly the single most important goal for the university.
The cost of this thinking will degrade Arizona education, now and well into the future.

How far off base.

If one assumes that teaching in a field should be guided by research in that discipline and that general education needs to involve faculty from various disciplines, then one must agree that there are fundamental flaws in the basic assumptions of two White Papers: the Vice President for Instruction’s White Paper on General Education (no number provided) and the Undergraduate Writing Instruction (#126) submissions. Most faculty will readily agree that teaching and research should be closely related and that it makes no sense to divorce instruction in a discipline from a body of knowledge that constitutes that field of study. An extensive body of research on the teaching of writing needs to be consulted in planning curricula to ensure the effectiveness of instruction. Research on the writing process provides guidelines for how to teach writing in ways that build on how students learn and what they need to learn to address various audiences and purposes in differing disciplines. In response to the premises of these White Papers, we offer the following comments: Comparison to Peer Institutions: We have researched all of our ABOR peer institutions and find that ALL support writing through either a Department of English or a Program/Department of Writing Studies. Cost Factors Related to Writing Program Instruction: English has one of the lowest salary scales for GATs in the University of Arizona ($3779/average). The cost of paying TAs/GATs from other colleges to teach composition would be prohibitively more expensive based upon their GAT stipend scale. Because of budget cuts of over $1 million dollars since 2004, the Writing Program operates at maximum efficiency and still provides optimal quality of instruction. The scale of the Writing Program is staggering: 545 sections of 100- and 300- level courses in 2008, teaching 12,304 students. In addition, the Writing Program maximizes enrollment due to its historical tracking of placement and retention. In F08, first-day enrollment was 98.64% capacity, and 21st day was 95.9%. Research: The UA Writing Program conducts research on retention, placement, and curricula. We participated in two ABOR funded initiatives, one of which was a collaboration with NAU and ASU. As an example of our research commitment in the Writing Program, we recently piloted and implemented an innovative course for developmental writers (at the urging of ABOR to eliminate “remedial” courses). Historically, students who had lower ability in writing were placed in a basic writing course, ENGL 100. Their time to degree was 3 semesters/9 units in order to fulfill the UA writing requirement. In Fall 2007, we eliminated ENGL 100 and placed these students in regular ENGL 101 classes with a one-credit Writing Studio (ENGL 197b) attached. Our research on these classes shows an increase in the student continuation rate of 14.2% and an increase in retention of 24.2%. In addition, 43% of ENGL 101+ are minority students (compared to 26.1% of the first-year students in F07). This kind of extensive research could not be conducted without a central disciplinary unit devoted to the teaching of writing. Diversity of Course Offerings: In addition to First-Year Composition (FYC), the Writing Program offers an ESL sequence, including co-convened native and ESL sections. We also offer an array of advanced courses, including business writing, technical writing, advanced composition, and sophomore composition (focuses on writing in the disciplines). Some of these advanced courses are required by other majors for their professional accreditations. Outreach and Partnerships: The Writing Program collaborates with more than 20 units on campus (New Start, Med Start, Retention, Library, Athletics, Native American, African American, and Mexican American Student Affairs, International Student Affairs, to name several) and works with Gear Up and the Southern Arizona Writing Project to partner with local schools. Currently, 13 sections of FYC are linked in a service-learning partnership with high school students. These relationships have been cornerstones of the UA land grant mission, and such early outreach, retention initiatives, and collaborative projects are hallmarks of the discipline of Writing Studies. Teacher Course Evaluations: On a scale of one to five, the overall effectiveness on TCEs for Writing Program courses is 4.2. Considering that these are not elective courses, we are proud of the standards we uphold including the lack of grade appeals (none in 2007), and the overwhelmingly positive feedback from undergraduates. Transfer and Articulation: In 2007, the Writing Program evaluated 1597 transcripts of transfer students to facilitate placement or exemption from FYC, read over 60 transfer portfolios and 31 CLEP exams, and processed schedule changes for 1108 students. It is imperative to have a central Writing Program administration to evaluate transcripts and articulate course goals and equivalencies among the community colleges and universities in Arizona and across the nation. Publications: The Writing Program has published its own textbooks for 29 years (see this year’s A Student’s Guide to First-Year Writing). These custom publications provide professional development opportunities for graduate students, and they help celebrate a culture of writing on this campus (see First-Year Essay Contest). The Writing Program is truly dedicated to the mission of this university. We work to provide students with quality learning experiences; to offer opportunities that showcase their writing and critical thinking; to shepherd students into academic discourse; to mentor and teach them through the most difficult stage of their college careers. We fight for their right to be here (and stay here), providing both tutoring services like the Writing Center and opportunities to connect with their peers and instructors in a workshop environment devoted solely to the nurturing of critical thinking and writing skills. More than teaching only grammar, the UA Writing Program teaches students to think critically, write thoughtfully, research ethically, and become engaged citizens in this democracy.

As the course director for English 107 and 108, I would like to set the record straight.

Although it might appear that some of the English composition classes only have 11 students, this is not the case. The confusion comes from the "split" classes we run. These classes combine students who are taking English 101 or English 102 with students who are taking English 107 or English 108, which are the corresponding courses for ESL students. Thus, while there might well only be 11 US students in a given class, there may be up to 15 international students, bringing the total enrollment to 26.

There are many reasons to run split classes, but from an administrative position, these sections allow us the flexibility to fill courses at the last minute. For example, the international student population varies widely from year to year, based partially on the facility of obtaining visas.

These split section are also a cognitive and social benefit to our student population. US students benefit from being in contact from students from around the globe. Many times they tell me, "Before I came to this class, I'd never even talked to a person from Japan (or Russia or Korea, etc.)." This experience is eye-opening for students who are otherwise culturally sheltered. In a global world, giving our US students the chance to learn about other cultures and peoples is crucial to their development.

This experience is also crucial for the international students who are anxious to join the UA social scene but who have trouble meeting Americans. The friendly atmosphere of a small writing class helps them acclimate to their new academic challenges. They have the chance to practice their English, and they astonish their classmates with their intense work habits.

We would like to run all of our ESL classes as split sections. We don't because the instructors have to be especially qualified. Besides teaching writing, they need to be expert grammarians and rhetoricians. They also need to have a high degree of intercultural competence.

To keep my comments brief, I'll point out only two items of particular note: first, it bears repeating that this proposal grossly underestimates the number of students served by the Writing Program. It is over 6700 students this semester alone--a tremendous service indeed.

Second, the paper's proposal of an average class size of 60 to teach writing shows no understanding of the pedagogy behind this skill--plain and simple. Writing is much, much more than punctuation, syntax, and appropriate citation; it cannot (and should not) be reduced to a compressed set of rubrics. It's a means of communication that sharpens only with practice, but most especially so when it's taught by those who study the English language.

At its core, this proposal misunderstands the aim and function of a strong writing program at any top-tier university: to help students become critical thinkers, regardless of their intended majors. We would not be serving students well if they lacked the critical thinking skills they needed to perform successfully in courses outside of their fields of study.

Writing is thinking, and it is essential that our students are given the opportunity to expand their minds and develop the kinds of skills they can use in any discipline after graduation. The college years should be a time of exploration as well as skill-building. The Writing Program is an incredible and rigorous program that serves our student body beyond well, and it would be a mistake of incalculable proportion to mess around with it now. We must not lose sight of our long-term goals here, but remember that the University of Arizona is first and foremost a place for all students to receive a first-rate education. Let's not shortchange future students by thinking of our pocketbooks before their rigorous, ongoing, flourishing, liberal arts education.

13) "We propose an average class size of 60 with one faculty instructor and one TA per class."

This is a terrible, terrible model for writing pedagogy. Dr. Plante simply is not aware of what it takes to teach writing. Ideally, writing should be taught in courses of around 20. That allows the instructors to engage directly with the students. Teaching and grading writing is extremely time-intensive; a class of 60 students would allow instructors to give only the most cursory attention to each paper, and would reduce writing education to little more than a fill-in-the-blanks model, discarding any notion of training students to be critical thinkers.

There is one aspect of Dr. Plante's proposal that is promising, and that is the idea that students should, at some point in their education, learn the specifics of how to critically read and write in their discipline. However, this should be AFTER they have learned the fundamentals of analysis, research, and writing that are taught in the Writing Program. What we need is not a balkanization of the disciplines wherein students receive a vocational-style education in parroting the material and forms given them by their instructors. We need to encourage writing across the disciplines, wherein after students complete their initial writing sequence, they have the opportunity (or the requirement) to take more advanced writing courses that are focused on specific issues or disciplines. This means that other programs should work more closely with the Writing Program to develop new courses and opportunities; it does not mean the cannibalization of the Writing Program in order to wring a few extra dollars for your own school.

8) "Students receive instruction that is more specific to the conventions of their
broadly-defined field of study."

What about courses outside of that field? What about when they leave the University and change careers over the course of their lives? What about the need for a broad education that enables them to be flexible and creative, rather than simply trains them to be low-level task-oriented workers?

9) "Students receive instruction in how to be consumers of the primary literature in
their general area of study (e.g., business, science, engineering, arts)."

Do we really want our students to think of themselves as "consumers?" What about being producers? What about being critical thinkers? What about being discerning and productive citizens?

10) "Faculty teaching in Tier II and classes in the major should experience a reduced
burden because they can hold students accountable for basic writing structure and
are not backtracking to remove conventions established in English 101 when
those conventions are antithetical to discipline-appropriate writing."

I would like to know what these "antithetical" conventions supposedly are. I suspect they are things such as citation format, which, while important, are only mechanical. I will reiterate: the Writing Program does far more than teach sentence structure and punctuation. We are critical to the development of intelligent, productive, and analytical students at this university.

4) "We propose that the responsibility for a two-semester entry-level writing instruction be
moved to the colleges or schools that house the disciplines."

This assumes that professors in various schools want to devote their time to teaching writing instruction rather than the content of their discipline. I seriously doubt that this is the case. The reason why writing instruction (and, in gen. ed courses, grading) is done by graduate students is because a) it provides good job experience for the graduate students, b) it provides funding for graduate students, and c) professors are too overworked to be involved in the time intensive process of grading hundreds of pages of essays.

5) "Students enrolled in the Humanities, Science, Business, and the like would receive writing instruction within their school or college, from those who understand the general conventions and expectations of that general area of study."

Again, the Writing Program is about teaching critical thinking skills in reading and writing. This plan would narrow the education that students receive severely. By focusing purely on "conventions and expectations," undergraduates would not learn how to communicate across disciplines. Instead, they would only be able to write for a limited audience. This would also severely compromise their ability to perform in classes outside of their major. This proposal threatens the well-rounded education in a variety of disciplines that is at the heart of the University's mission.

2) "The current requirement of 10 pages of writing per gen-ed class does not
inherently lead to improved writing, particularly when the grading of writing is
based solely on writing content rather than the written form (organization of
content, grammar, word choice, spelling, punctuation)."

I am not sure exactly what Dr. Plante means by this. In First Year Writing, the average amount of student writing is far more than 10 pages. The total for final drafts of papers is over 20 pages per semester, plus students do much additional writing in exercises throughout the semester. And in terms of grading, English instructors evaluate students on every aspect of their writing, from the mechanical (grammar, spelling, punctuation) to the stylistic (diction, sentence structure) to the conceptual (quality of ideas, organization).

If Dr. Plante is referring to the other Gen Ed courses (Trad, Nats, Indv), then it seems that the problem with student writing is not at all in the work done in the Writing Program, but in the fact that that work is not reinforced in other gen ed courses and the work done in the various disciplines. The reason why students may "unlearn" some recommendations from their Writing class is simply because their instructors in other departments do not look at their writing with a critical eye, instead grading purely on content.

How will decreasing the amount of writing in introductory writing courses prepare undergraduate students for writing the 5, 10, and even 15 page papers required of them in their upper-level courses? The emphasis should not be on relegating writing faculty to their own section of the University, nor should it be on reducing requirements. One cannot learn how to write long papers without actually writing them. A better idea might be to model the Freshman Writing Course sequence on a successful course (or sequence) at another university.