Report on the College of Charleston Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Program:
1991-1997
Report
on the College of Charleston Writing Across the Curriculum
(WAC) Program:
1991-1997
The Program
The Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) program at the College of Charleston began in fall 1991. The
WAC project was initiated to encourage faculty to incorporate writing into their
classes and to enhance retention. As director, I worked under the head of Enrollment
Management. The program, as envisioned by the college, called for an English
101 class to be linked with another course. The students enrolled in the English
class would also be enrolled in another class together. The English classes
in the link contained only those students enrolled in the link. Because most
classes enroll more than the 20 students normally found in an English 101 class,
classes outside English contained both students enrolled in the link and other
students. Each instructor was asked to include a writing component in the class
and to incorporate some interdisciplinary work into the classes. The program
was limited to the fall semester only. .
What Worked
1.
Theme
Days
With a meager budget
and limited mission (linking freshman courses), the WAC program had little visibility
on campus. As a result, in October 1993 I started what I called Theme Days.
I envisioned an interdisciplinary panel discussion which would involve 5-6 of
the CofC faculty across the disciplines. They would convene on one day of the
spring (usually) semester to discuss a literary work. I encouraged faculty to
integrate the work into their courses and to include some writing about the
work. There have been 10 theme days, one a year since 1993.
Typically the Theme Days attracted 300 - 400 faculty and students. I wrote about
the Theme Day in a chapter of a book entitled Learning Literature in an Era
of Change. Because of the workload imposed by the CAC committee, this year
I passed the chairmanship of the Theme Day committee to another member of the
English department. The subject for this year's Theme Day is Waiting for
Godot. With support from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences and
the department of English, the Theme Days will continue.
2. The National Writing Across the Curriculum Conference
Another initiative resulting from the CofC WAC program is the National Writing
Across the Curriculum conference. Because I lacked funds to travel and to bring
speakers to campus, I started the conference in 1993 as a way to bring speakers
to campus so I could learn more about WAC. I sought help from the School of
Humanities and Social Sciences. Sam Hines supported the conference with a $500
contribution. I then approached The Citadel and Clemson to find two people to
work on the conference with me and to contribute to the budget. Both schools
put up $500. Beginning with $1500, the three conference directors (one from
the three institutions above) hosted three national WAC conferences at the CofC:
1993 (350 attendees), 1995 (550 attendees), and 1997 (750 attendees). Lacking
institutional support and pressured to make the conference contribute to the
CofC operating budget, I (along with the other two conference directors representing
Clemson and The Citadel) transferred the conference to Cornell for the 1999
conference. The national WAC conference still meets every other year, each time
at another institution. The 7th National WAC conference will be held in May
2004 at the University of Missouri.
3. WAC Workshops
WAC workshops were regularly scheduled when classes were not in session. They
typically lasted one or two days and lunch was provided. Usually one workshop
was held each semester - before or after each semester. About 30 - 40 faculty
attended each of the workshops. A leader in WAC from another institution led
the first workshop on campus. CofC faculty led all other workshops. In 1997
when the WAC program ended, these workshops also ended.
Problems with the CofC
WAC Program
Planning for
the linked courses was difficult since the program enrolled only students who
were coming to college for the first time. As director of the WAC program, I
met with each Orientation session during the summer and encouraged students
to enroll in one of the links. The students were dizzy with information about
college and those who enrolled seemed to choose one of the links because they
thought they would have a ready made support group since they would have two
classes with the same students or because they discovered they had found an
easy way to enroll in classes with friends. While students grew to enjoy the
linked courses and did indeed discover they could form study groups with the
students in the links, their initial motivation for enrolling was not based
on a desire to learn more about writing.
Although a
small core of faculty remained committed to the linked courses, recruiting faculty
for the program was difficult. Many faculty did not want to invest the time
needed to work with another faculty member to link courses. Some departments
(e.g. History) did not want to link with an English 101 class because they did
not want to teach students until they had already completed English 101. In
addition, some faculty felt that there were no rewards for participation: no
credit on evaluations or for tenure and promotion. One faculty member who participated
enthusiastically in the program was dismayed to discover that her chair did
not even mention her participation in the WAC program in her annual evaluation.
The WAC budget
did not allow for financial rewards for faculty participating in the program
or for travel or for bringing WAC speakers to campus.
The links had
some problems because the course outside the English 101 class had students
not connected to the WAC program. Upon realizing that the course was linked
to an English class, these students often felt that would unfairly be given
extra writing assignments because of the WAC program. This posed problems for
the teacher. The students outside the link also made interdisciplinary work
more difficult. The administration would not limit both classes to the same
students.
Because the
program involved incoming freshmen and teachers of 100-level classes, the program
lacked visibility on campus.
The conference
grew so quickly (350 - 750 attendees from 1993 - 1997) that I eventually lacked
the time and resources (no clerical help) to devote to putting on a first-class
conference. I was told by the interim associate provost that I should work on
the conference in my spare time.
The
conference directors felt funds remaining in the conference account should be
used to enhance the next conference (bring in excellent speakers, publish a
proceedings, etc.) and to send faculty to this meeting. When the CofC sought
to make the conference a money-making venture rather than an opportunity for
the CofC faculty to learn from other faculty and to showcase what our faculty
were doing, the conference moved.
Lessons Learned from the
WAC Program
Financial support
must be adequate for a program to survive.
The administration
(provost, deans, chairs) must give faculty credit for tenure and promotion for
participation in a WAC (or CAC) program.
The director
should have adequate release time to run the program well.
The program
needs to have visibility on campus and to be available to all faculty who want
to participate.
The program
should provide some additional rewards for faculty and not appear to be just
add-on work.
Linked courses
do not work well when students outside the link are allowed to enroll in one
of the classes.
Programs that
are dictated from the top down without extensive faculty input and support will
meet with
faculty resistance.
Sylvia Gamboa
Director of Writing Across the Curriculum
1991-1997
