Hennessy

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29: 261-275, 2005 B'^ Routledae Copyright © Taylor & Francis Inc. | ^ Taylor&f rands Croup ISSN: 1066-8926 print/1521-0413 online s m / DOI: 10.1080/10668920590901185

REFORMING WRITING AMONG STUDENTS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

David Hennessy Broward Community College, Davie, Florida, USA

Ruby Evans University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA The Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) movement, which swept through all levels of American education during the 1960s and 1970s, seemed a logical remedy for student writing deficiencies. However, the impact of WAC has not lived up to its promise. The WAC movement, as currently implemented in many community colleges, may be ineffective at best. To significantly improve student writing, systemic reform in pedagogical practice in English composition courses and throughout the disciplines is imperative. With no reform, we may unintentionally rob writing of its ability to be a tool for learning, thus negating the movement's primary goal. This article provides an historical perspective of writing across the curriculum,, alongside a suggested reform model that includes essential components.

The basic concept that students learn through writing has impacted pedagogical approaches throughout higher education. Nonetheless, writing across the curriculum (WAC) does not appear to have radically altered higher education's marginalization of writing instruction. Although writing is an increasingly important part of the curriculum, rhetoric departments continue to die out throughout The authors wish to acknowledge the editorial assistance and internal peer review provided by Iris Rose Hart. Professor of English, Santa Fe Community College. Gainesville, Florida, whose knowledge and skill improved the manuscript immensely. Address correspondence to Ruby Evans, Department of Educational Research. Technology, and Leadership, University of Central Florida, Orlando. FL 32816-1250. E-mail: revans® mail.ucf.edu

262

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

higher education. Furthermore, existing composition programs are largely consigned to positions of second-class citizenship in universities and colleges. Today few 4-year schools have tenured positions for instructors of writing. Many universities view literary study as the "real" work of the English department. Community colleges have institutional missions quite apart from those of universities and 4-year colleges; the student body of the former is composed largely of students referred to as "nontraditional" and "at-risk" from a university perspective (Kelly-Kleese, 2001). By their defining purpose and mission statement, community colleges have been especially sensitive and responsive to the practical needs of students and the community being served. Furthermore, community-college faculty represent almost one-third of the American professoriate and teach nearly 40% of all college students and almost 50% of all first-time freshmen (Prager, 2003). In 2000, the League for Innovation in the Community College identified a common set of core competencies for student learning outcomes in the 21st century. These core skills are summarized into eight categories: communication skills, computation skills, community skills, critical thinking and problem solving skills, information management skills, interpersonal skills, personal skills, and technology skills (Wilson, Miles, Baker, & Schoenberger, 2000). Specific to communication skills, 21st century employers continue to demand workers who can clearly organize information and demonstrate acumen in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Foote (1999) defined writing across the curriculum in community colleges as a process that incorporates writing in all content areas—social studies, math, science, business, vocational education, and language arts. Foote added that students benefit from this writing process in three ways: they have a resource to better understand content, they practice a technique that aids retention, and they improve their writing skills (p. 211). Shaw (1995) has addressed the community-college/workplace/WAC nexus as follows: Writing across the curriculum is important at 2-year colleges because of the varied nature of their mission. They seek to prepare students for further study, but also offer associate degrees in arts and sciences and certificate programs that prepare students for the world of work. Research estimates that 60% of new jobs will require solid reading and writing skills, but only one in four employees will have them. Given this conceptual perspective, it is not surprising that community colleges have traditionally put great value on writing

Reforming Writing Among Students

263

instruction. English faculty have teaching loads that are heavily weighted toward traditional freshman composition courses. Accordingly, such institutions provide the ideal setting for reforming the instruction and use of writing across the curriculum. THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITING Writing essays and papers that meet academic standards translates into receiving passing or acceptable grades in all types of community-college courses. Learning to write, then, is central to students' successful matriculation through these institutions (Hansman & Wilson, 1998). At the simplest level, having students engage in writing throughout their courses serves a simple need to improve students' communications skills. Beyond mere functionality, writing is an effective way to aid student mastery of course content. According to Soven (1996), incorporating writing throughout the curriculum provides the following benefits: 1. The act of writing enhances knowing: retrieving information, organizing it, and expressing it in writing seem to improve understanding and retention. 2. Writing is an active learning process: active learning seems to be more effective than passive reception. 3. Writing focuses attention: those who know they are expected to write tend to be more attentive. 4. Writing is a self-paced mode of learning: the pace of writing seems to match better the pace of learning, slowing down the process of those who might be inclined to finish a learning task too quickly, (pp. 1-2) Used as an interdisciplinary learning tool, writing encourages a student-centered rather than a teacher-centered approach to learning; thereby allowing students to recognize a sense of ownership over the production of their own knowledge. For example, Hansman and Wilson (1998) argue that stepwise models of the writing process represent a decontextualized abstraction that ignores how activity, social culture, and writing tools allow students to construct their own processes for writing. For writing to be most effective, it cannot merely ask students to wake up long enough to repeat the factual knowledge they have been taught. As a conduit for learning, writing requires that students actively engage with content. Writing must help

264

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

students to critically engage with a topic, probe the logic behind it, consider its potential causes and impact, and develop new ideas. WAC—AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE In the 1870s, written exams and papers became dominant over oral exams and recitation (Russell, 1994, p. 3). Minimal discussion of the use of writing took place; however, it was viewed as a utilitarian skill and little more. The social changes of the 1950s and 1960s opened higher education to a wide array of students, many of whom had been previously denied access to higher education. The community college invited greater diversity in the higher-education student population through its physical accessibility, low tuition rates, and open admissions policies. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, the poor, and the working classes began entering through higher-education's uplifted gates. As these new and diverse cohorts entered higher education, educators expressed concern regarding student literacy. Some of the uneasiness generated by the presence of a newly diverse group of students was justifiably attributed to the accompanying heterogeneous mix of abilities. Conversely, the existence of a conservative political agenda that sought to discourage upending the elitist status quo of higher education and its pathways to social mobility was as disquieting. The national debate on literacy became widespread in the 1970s, stoked significantly by the 1974 Newsweek story, "Why Johnny Can't Write." Education's reactive response was a movement towards a "back to basics" remedial approach to writing instruction (Russell, 1994). This reform effort focused on issues of grammar and structure, rather than on connecting writing to the higher levels of Bloom's (1956) taxonomy. Amid all this concern over literacy and writing, the writing across the curriculum movement began to grow. WAC was a byproduct of the Bay Area Writing Project (BAWP), a "bottom-up" approach to writing instruction at the secondary level in California. BAWP, which consisted of a workshop approach, focused on eliciting teacher ideas for the improvement of student writing. Faculty participants were encouraged to engage in writing research and theory "without claiming to have definitive answers" (Russell, 1994, p. 3). The BAWP approach created a new emphasis on writing as a form of inquiry, and as a means of developing new ideas. Elaine Maimon and Toby Fulwiler are identified as early adopters of WAC in higher education (Russell, 1994). The success ofthe WAC programs that these individuals initiated helped spread the concept nationally. As a crucial component, these initial programs included

Reforming Writing Among Students

265

faculty-development workshops that focused on incorporating writing across disciplines that would aid discipline-specific learning. Maimon and Fulwiler sought to address the literacy concern by encouraging interdisciplinary faculty to use writing as a central tenet of a student-centered learning approach. By engaging faculty across the disciplines, writing gained an authentic presence in conversations about pedagogy, thereby mitigating the narrow view of writing instruction as being merely remedial in nature. Many progressive educators found the movement liberating as these workshops provided "their first opportunity to discuss pedagogy (much less writing) in an institutionally-sponsored forum" (Russell, 1994, p. 18). WAC IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Arguments about social empowerment can easily be swept away by those who misread the mission of community colleges as primarily serving as training grounds for a paraprofessional class. Such a view discourages the creation of thought that is viewed as too impractical or "academic." The very nature of community colleges, then, may present an obstacle because their pragmatism may seem to discourage critical thinking. Of course, businesses need good thinkers, too. "Thinking outside the box" is a skill desperately needed in the workplace. In Florida, the Gordon Rule (SBE 6A-10.030), enacted in 1982, requires that all students take at least two writing-intensive courses beyond the two required traditional composition courses. While WAC has become a commonplace phrase in pedagogical discussions at community colleges, it does not appear that there have been widespread efforts to move beyond the first stage of the movement. Historically, in the initial stage of WAC reform, faculty and/or administrators begin to embrace the concept, attend professionaldevelopment workshops, and attempt rudimentary implementation of WAC concepts in their courses. In its embryonic stage, WAC reform often coincides with curriculum change. This change takes the form of requirements that students complete a number of writing-intensive courses beyond those of traditional first-year composition. Many community colleges have instituted such requirements. In fact, some community colleges may be guilty of adopting the broad concept, requirements, and vocabulary of WAC, in the absence of requisite institutional support to make it effective and sustainable. For the WAC movement to enter a successful second stage, advanced and intensive faculty development workshops appear to

266

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

be a necessary ingredient (McLeod, 1989). A beginning WAC workshop is necessary for faculty first engaging the idea of incorporating writing in their courses. Such workshops focus primarily on helping faculty accept the concept that writing may be used as a tool for learning. Beyond this fact, many successful WAC practitioners have begun to recognize that writing across the disciplines is most effective when it engages students in critical thinking. McLeod's (1989) survey of existing higher education WAC programs found that those that seemed to sustain vitality and impact continued faculty development beyond just initiating newcomers. However, McLeod's research also suggests that the movement towards using writing to encourage critical thinking is being emphasized more at universities than community colleges. Community colleges focus on more practical (but low-level) concerns, such as enhancing language-development skills and meeting the needs of ESL students. WRITING REFORM WITHIN THE ENGLISH-COMPOSITION CURRICULUM Florida's 28 community colleges adhere to a uniform coursenumbering system that revolves around state-approved course outlines. At Broward Community College, the course outline defines English Composition I as "a university-parallel course in which the student writes expository themes in various modes." The outline further delineates these areas of study: essay development, standards of American English, and research skills. While all these skills are essential, the application of this course outline appears to lend itself to a course structured around the various essay formats. Similarly, the vast majority of English Composition I course syllabi statewide are structured around personal narration, comparison/contrast, cause/effect, process analysis, and persuasive essays, as well as some form of researched report. These modes may be adapted to the use of higher-level thinking skills. However, by making modes the primary focus of the course, teachers are more likely to spend more time on structure than on asking students to engage in truly analytical thinking. It is common for Englishcomposition teachers to declare that these courses are about teaching the basics of writing, and that critical thinking can be taught in later courses—such as literature electives. This trend towards uncritical thinking may be partly related to the fact that, over the last two decades, English departments in community colleges have put new emphasis on serving the

Reforming Writing Among Students

267

language-development needs of nonnative speakers of English. This is done in both remedial and college-level courses. The remedial nature of this focus often deters emphasis on critical-thinking skills; clear, straightforward communication becomes the primary goal instead. Such a provincial focus provides a new twist on the "cooling out" phenomenon, actually disempowering recent immigrants while seeming to empower them. Instead, Canagarajah (2002) argues that alongside communication skills, critical literacy must reside as an equal: Texts can open up new possibilities for writers and their communities—just as illiteraey or ineffective writing can deny avenues for advancement. Writing can bring into being new orientations to the self and the world—just as passive, complacent, or meehanieal writing parrots the established view of things (which may serve the unfair, partisan interests of dominant institutions and social groups), (p. 1)

Given the potential benefits of using writing in the learning process, one may be surprised to discover that the WAC movement faces stiff resistance, in both philosophy and practice, from many within community-college English departments. English faculty may query, "Is this label [critical thinking] bringing into composition something extraneous to writing activity, such as political causes or social concerns that are the whims of one scholarly circle or the other?" (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 1). This perspective posits an apparent competition for classroom time between teaching critical thinking and teaching the style and structure of college-level writing. This perceived competition reveals a potential deficiency in the approach of today's composition curriculum in the community colleges. One current problem with English-composition courses is that they may not always help set up WAC writing that promotes writing at the critical thinking level. Instead, too much focus may be on modes or forms of writing. Such emphasis is reflected not merely on individual syllabi, but by the many state-approved curricula at the college level. The ability to write clear, well-structured factual knowledge is important. However, if it becomes the primary focus of English-composition courses, we are then left to ponder precisely which disciplines will teach students how to use writing as a tool of critical inquiry, not merely as a means of communication. If those whose primary occupation is to teach writing neglect this duty, it may not be realistic to expect that faculty in other disciplines will fill the gap.

268

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

FACULTY RESISTANCE ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES At times, faculty have shown resistance to WAC for various reasons that mostly involve the mere feasibility of its use. Using writing assignments in the various disciplines requires a great deal of time for feedback and grading to be accomplished. Non-English faculty are concerned, and perhaps rightfully so, over their ability to evaluate and teach writing. Wilson and Plutksy's (2001) survey of faculty noted the following: Some professors admitted feeling incompetent when grading writing. An accounting professor believes, "Part of the problem is that we are expected to evaluate something that we have not been trained to do." For example, "I know what I like about art, but I don't know much about it." This professor is "comfortable grading the analysis and argument yet uncomfortable grading an awkward sentence and not knowing what is wrong with it." (% 30) Beyond faculty concerns about ability to evaluate writing are issues of feasibility. The widespread belief is that WAC requires smaller class sizes. Some may try to come up with innovative solutions for how WAC can be incorporated into large lecture-hall-style classes. In truth, they are doomed to fail because WAC precepts "only translate into specific practices when an instructor perceives the conditions are right and appropriate" (Fulwiler, 1984, p. 55). These precepts cannot succeed if teachers do not think they are realistic. Lastly, it is common for faculty to express concern that, to be properly incorporated, some discipline-specific writing instruction will be necessary. Concerns may be raised about how much writing instruction will be necessary within the disciplines, and whether such instruction will cut into class time for content learning. The latter concern is easier to answer. Quite simply, the intent behind WAC is to use writing to help further content learning, not to impose an additional burden. While WAC may require that some time to be committed to discipline-specific discussions of writing, the use of this time is likely to result in students who are more capable of disciplinespecific inquiry. WAC: SOLUTION OR PART OF THE PROBLEM? The various obstacles of faculty resistance are not insurmountable. Since the 1970s, as faculty have incorporated writing into college

Reforming Writing Among Students

269

coursework, many have felt successful about the process. Proponents of WAC have always championed it as a means to improve writing skills and critical thinking. However, some problems in its widespread application may result in it becoming counterproductive and ineffective. At some universities, for example, WAC may occur in lecturehall-style classes, with poorly equipped teaching assistants doing most of the reading, responding to drafts, and occasionally grading essays (Weinberg, 1993). At the community-college level, such teaching assistants do not exist. A common solution to large class sizes is to incorporate writing assignments, but to assign no grades or feedback. Yet, most would agree that for students to begin to critique their own thinking and writing, some form of feedback is a necessary component (Lyons, Mclntosh, & Kysilka, 2003, 216-17). Growth is most often associated with feedback that is facilitative. That is, it helps students see writing and thinking as an intertwined process, while empowering them to probe topics and express ideas in a manner that eludes the teacher's absolute control. Tinberg (1997) suggests that such feedback must happen through written or oral exchanges that allow for a kind of border negotiation between the teacher's purpose and the student's perspective. This approach is dependent upon instructors having both the time and willingness to truly read and respond to student writing. Writing assignments that receive no grade, elicit no feedback, or are simply given credit regardless of quality may create problems on a much larger scale. Cohen and Brawer (2003) argue that since the 1960s schools have put much less emphasis on composition. Even when writing has been done, "creative expression" was treated at a higher level than were grammar and other tools of the writer's trade" (p. 258). Many see this emphasis as having led to lowered standards in the grading of writing. The WAC movement may encourage faculty to contribute to this trend of stimulating a great quantity of writing without much focus on the quality of thought or writing skill involved. If this happens, these practices will actually run counter to the movement's intended effect. Quantity of writing does not automatically breed quality of writing. Yet, many faculty commonly misinterpret the point of WAC. They think it emphasizes writing in the varying subjects with the hope that the more practice students get in writing, the better they will become at it. Writing improves significantly only if students are receiving quality feedback. On an institutional and state level, the WAC movement has encouraged word-count requirements (such as the Gordon Rule) that put the primary emphasis on the number of words

270

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

written, not on the quality of composition or thinking involved. With this emphasis on quantity, faculty often end up with too much writing to be able to allow for meaningful individual feedback. Instead, the most effective strategies for improving student writing tend to focus on quality, rather than quantity, allowing for numerous steps of feedback and revision. Strict adherence to word-count requirements such as the Gordon Rule ends up compelling many instructors to adopt a less-reflective, less-facilitative approach to student writing. Thus, requirements focusing on quantity may not only fail in solving the problem of critical literacy, but also may actually create new problems. When quantity is emphasized and when students receive little feedback, the quality of writing remains poor. Because of problems in the quality of student writing, professors have decreased the number of writing assignments while increasing length. For example, while a teacher might like to assign three essays, he or she instead assigns one long research paper due to time and workload constraints. Students unaccustomed to college-level intellectual inquiry are much more likely to learn from a series of shorter writing assignments than a single "momentous" paper. Wilson and Plutsky's (2001) survey found that since adopting the WAC movement, instructors have consistently simplified assignments, and—more dangerously—lowered their grading standards. In many cases, "Students appear to be rewarded, rather than punished, for poorly written papers—faculty seem to be reluctant to assign grades less than a C (Wilson & Plutsky, 2001, ^ 42). This survey suggests that WAC requirements, imposed on poorly trained faculty who do not have the time or skills to properly assess writing, simply result in students getting bad assignments and earning passing grades on inferior writing. Requirements such as Florida's Gordon Rule result in mixedpurpose courses. In Florida's community colleges, students may take dozens of courses with a "writing option." Thus, some students in the room are taking the "writing intensive" version of the course, while others are not. As a result, the courses usually incorporate this writing element with a single large research paper due near the end of the course. In many cases, this paper is little discussed since it relates to only a portion of the students enrolled. Since these writing assignments are then not likely viewed as an integral element for student learning in this course, rarely are students encouraged toward topics that require critical inquiry. Rather, they are expected to report merely factual information culled from research. In other circumstances where writing is required, it is given inordinately little importance in determining the course grade, giving

Reforming Writing Among Students

271

students little impetus to focus on quality composition. For example, Riordan, Riordan, and Sullivan (2000) reported research findings in whieh three accounting faculty were generally pleased with the results of ineorporating writing assignments into their courses. However, these writing assignments represented only 5% of the overall grade, even though they required a significant amount of time and effort on the part of both teachers and students. Beyond problems with implementation, WAC may not be feasible for widespread use on the community-college level due to a general lack of participation in faculty development programs. Numerous studies over the last 30 years have shown that a decidedly low percentage of faculty members participate in such development opportunities. This fact is compounded by the reality that "those faculty who do participate are often the ones who seem to need them least" (Angelo, 1994, p. 3). A further obstacle is presented by the fact that faculty tend to be resistant to adopting instructional methods from those outside their disciplines. Maxwell and Kazlauskas (1992) note the following: "In successful faculty-development opportunities, [the] ideal type of consultant is a colleague in one's own department who is an up-to-date specialist in the specific discipline and who also can serve as a model in instructional methods" (as cited in Murray, 2002, p. 95). Yet this resource creates a special conundrum for writing across the curriculum: Is it feasible to find these specialized facilitators for discipline-specific WAC training? If not, faculty resistance may be insurmountable. One final complication results from the fact that over 60% of community-college faculty are employed part-time (Leslie & Gappa, 2002, p. 59). Part-time, or adjunct, faculty are much less likely to engage in professional conferences or in-service faculty-development opportunities (Leslie & Gappa). Therefore, even when schools do offer vibrant, continuing WAC workshops, the effectiveness of these professional development activities are constrained by the lack of active participation and engagement of both full- and part-time faculties across the disciplines. This concern may, however, be mitigated by the increasing emphasis on improving the quality and scope of faculty-development programs. On the basis of empirical research involving 300 publicly-supported two-year colleges. Grant and Keim (2002) predicted the following: [CJommunity colleges will continue to improve the status, set a higher priority, enhance the quality, and extend the opportunities for faculty development in the future, because of technological requirements.

272

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

competition among institutions, stricter accreditation standards, and a demand for student-based learning outcomes." (p. 803)

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE The writing across the curriculum movement has significantly impacted courses throughout the community-college curriculum. Writing can be an effective tool to help students become active participants in their own learning. In addition, writing is most effective when used to encourage critical thinking and communications skills. Despite these advantages, quality practice of WAC has been hampered by incongruous philosophies and practices in teaching English composition. Faculty resistance has presented further obstacles and poor practice across the disciplines. As a result, for WAC to truly reach its goals, there needs to be a greater emphasis on continuing faculty training and institutional support. Without such reforms, the use of writing in the various disciplines may, at times, actually serve to undermine the goals of this movement. The WAC movement, as currently presented in many community colleges, may be ineffective at best. If the result of poor implementation and support of WAC is actually reinforcing a decline in critical thinking skills and inadvertently encouraging poor writing skills, then in the name of learning-centered instruction, we must either end it or mend it. We encourage the latter and propose a four-component reform model that entails the following elements: Offers Faculty Training Both full- and part-time faculty require training to recognize the importance of creating provocative topics/questions in order to encourage writing that really engages critical-thinking skills. The main point of WAC—writing as a means of inquiry and thought development—is largely missed if assignments merely ask for the regurgitation of factual, unexamined knowledge. Instead, reflective teaching, "by means of a careful sequence of lessons or assignments, can assure that the students are conscious of their minds in action, [and] can develop their language by means of deliberative choice" (Berthoff, 1997, p. 311). Faculty Training that Moves Beyond the Basics of WAC Faculty training needs to focus not merely on teaching writing techniques and on creating worthy writing prompts, but also must model

Reforming Writing Among Students

273

"ways to teach students to evaluate the adequacy of an argument, strategies to show students how to navigate among facts, inferences, and opinions in their writing assignments" (Weinberg, 1993, p. B3). Faculty-Development Opportunities that Recruit and Engage an Interdisciplinary Cohort of Practitioners in Dialogue about Theory and Practice Issues Related to Writing Across the Curriculum WAC-related faculty-development opportunities need to allow for significant contact between composition instructors and those beginning to adapt writing for learning other disciplines. Such opportunities for collaboration create greater consistency of standards and expectations for teaching and evaluating writing skills. At the same time, institutions that can find discipline-specific facilitators for such training are likely to be more successful in overcoming faculty resistance. Offers On-campus Learner Support Resources and Resource Centers Beyond the Primary Faculty (e.g.. Writing Centers) Writing centers need to have the resources and structure to support students in the writing and revision processes for WAC to be fully effective. The kind of inquiry required in the best writing assignments can be challenging for many students, especially those accustomed to the less-rigorous uses of writing that are currently predominant. Hence, it is crucial that resources be available to guide students through the difficult tasks of writing-to-learn (Kuriloff, 1999). In truth, some faculty may never be well equipped with the time or expertise to fully assist students through this process. Community colleges with vibrant writing centers allow students to engage in one-on-one tutoring throughout all phases of composition, not merely after the teacher grades or comments have been assigned. The presence of such active resources provides the necessary supplemental guidance to facilitate learning through writing. This four-pronged model is proffered with an additional caveat that institutional support is essential to making the reforms work. The creation of WAC program offices and the appointment of program administrators—a common approach at numerous colleges and universities—although necessary, is not sufficient to ensure effective implementation of writing across the curriculum for either faculty or learners. Enough resources must be allocated to continually train both full- and part-time faculty and to staff writing centers to provide indispensable learner support. Unless such widespread

274

D. Hennessy and R. Evans

reforms are enacted in the use of writing throughout community college courses, academic standards will continue to fall, faculty frustration will grow, and writing will remain for many an albatross that must be grudgingly and fruitlessly endured. Provided this model is considered a viable alternative, however, the possibility exists that writing can be used throughout the curriculum to engage community college students in new, liberating, and personally fulfilling ways of learning. Simultaneously, learners will be afforded the opportunity to acquire critical thinking and communications skills that will serve them—and our communities—for a lifetime. REFERENCES Angelo, T. (1994, June). From faculty development to academic development. AAHE Bulletin, 46(\(i), 3-7. Berthoff, A. E. (1997). Is teaching still possible? Writing, meaning, and higher order reasoning. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory (pp. 307-322). Urbana, IL: NCTE Press. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longman. Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Foote, E. (1999). Writing across the curriculum in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23(2), 211-16. Fulwiler, T. (1984). How well does writing across the curriculum work? In C. Bazearman & D. Russell (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum (pp. 51-64). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press. Grant, M. R. & Keim, M. C. (2002). Faculty development in publicly supported two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 793807. Hansman, C. A. & Wilson, A. L. (1998). Teaching writing in community colleges: A situated view of how adults learn to write in computer-based writing classrooms. Community College Review, 26(1), 21-41. Kelly-KJeese, C. (2001). An open memo to community college faculty and administrators. Community College Review, 29(\), 58-64. Kuriloff, P. C. (1999). Writing centers as WAC centers: An evolving model. In R. Barnett & J. Blumner (Eds.), Writing centers and writing across the curriculum programs: Building interdisciplinary relationships (pp. 105-118). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Leslie, D. & Gappa, J. (2002). Part-time faculty: Competent and committed. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118, 59-68. Lyons, R., Mclntosh, M., & Kysilka, M. (2003). Teaching college in an age of accountability. Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Reforming Writing Among Students

275

McLeod, S. (1989). Writing across the curriculum: The second stage, and beyond. In C. Bazearman & D. Russell (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum (pp. 79-88). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press. Murray, J. (2002). The current state of faculty development in two-year colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118, 89-98. Prager, C. (2003). Scholarship matters. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 579-92. Riordan, D. A., Riordan, M. P., & Sullivan, M. C. (2000). Writing across the curriculum: An experiment—teaching effective writing to accounting students. Business Communication Quarterly, 63{\). Retrieved February 24, 2004, from Expanded Academic ASAP (A65575490). Russel, D. (1994). American origins ofthe writing-across-the-curriculum movement. In C. Bazearman & D. Russell (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum (pp. 3-22). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press. Shaw, A. D. (1995, May). An Odyssey: WAC (writing across the curriculum) in a twoyear college. Paper presented at the 17th Annual International Conference of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX. Soven, M. K. (1996). Write to learn: A guide to writing across the curriculum. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Tinberg, H. (1997). Border talk: Writing and knowing in the two-year college. Urbana, IL: NOTE Press. Weinberg, S. (1993, June 16). Overcoming skepticism about writing across the curriculum. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B2-B3. Wilson, C. D., Miles, C. L., Baker, R. L., & Schoenberger, R. L. (2000). Learning outcomes for the 21st century: Report ofa community college study. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. Wilson, S. & Plutsky, B. A. (2001). Writing across the curriculum in a college of business and economics. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 26-41. Retrieved February 24, 2004, from Expanded Academic ASAP (A80950640).