Models for WAC/CAC

Note: all of these models require support components (writing center, faculty workshops, writing fellows, etc.)

Characteristics Pros Cons Examples Culture Change  “Workshop” model: faculty  Workshop method  No curricular requirement UNLV, Reno, Colorado State, Toledo, development only  Some teaching/  Teaching not valued in Purdue  Increased resources to writing center, learning/writing will improve research culture teaching and learning center  Need funding for support components Writing  1-5 courses designated as “writing  Institutionalizes curricular  Some departments don’t have  George Mason (1 upper-division in Intensive intensive” (WI) or “writing emphasis” requirement faculty to staff small sections major, size 35, 5000 words/20 pages) Requirement (WE)  Can mandate small classes  Can create student resistance  University of Missouri-Columbia (2  Restrictions can include above 300-  Can create culture of writing, to writing in classes not WI, 1 in major, size 20, larger classes level or above, taken in major, etc. with proper, long-term support designated as “WI” have TAs, 3500 words/14 pages)  Can use “point system” or “WI  Many existing courses nearly  Necessary support  Arizona State (2 “L” courses, 1 credits,” so courses can be WI1, WI2, meet guidelines and can be components must be upper-division, preferably in major, etc. depending on the amount of writing approved with only minor adequately funded for program L=Literacy and Critical Inquiry)  “WI” criteria include total number of changes to assignments to work long term (writing  University of Minnesota (4 WI, 2 pages, incorporate process (revision, center, writing fellows, faculty upper division, 1 in major, 10-15 feedback, peer review), informal development) pages) writing assignments  WI oversight (course  University of Hawaii-Manoa  Class size typically capped but approval/assessment) must be (5 WI, transfers prorated, 4000 doesn’t have to be maintained to ensure rigor and words/16 pages)  Writing is significant portion of grade consistency  LSU “Comm. Intensive” (Courses  Writing is addressed in class (e.g., emphasize at least 2 CxC components: assignment sheets) written, spoken, visual, or technological; Elective “certificate” program) Upper-Division  Spreads traditional English  Creates “vertical” writing  Need to create new courses NC State, Clemson, Kentucky, Service Course composition requirement vertically program  Need to staff new courses Washington “up” curriculum by requiring 1 upper-  Manageable  Need to articulate with division English writing course institutionalization of WAC system and state  Many programs move to 3- to 4-credit  Can allow for “phase in” of  Not as extensive as most first-year composition requirement WI requirements ambitious WI programs  Many programs allow WI option  Variation could include upper- division writing links, ENG course attached to, e.g., capstone course, etc.

UNLV General Education Writing Across the Curriculum Retreat Characteristics Pros Cons Examples Junior-Rising  Variation on UD Service Course  Curricular requirement  Validity problems with essay  Washington State uses portfolio (exam Proficiency model, requires students to pass  Can create university-wide exam only option (Short, plus essays) proficiency exam dialogue on standards impromptu essays ≠ long,  Cal State Graduation Writing Assessment  Before 60 credits or end of junior year  Reinforces importance of researched, revised writing, Requirement, since1978 (Gives individual  Testing method varies, but either communication skills as a Fairness to non-native schools flexibility, 10 use exam, 2 use timed essay, specified grade in course, “graduation” requirement speakers) course, 3 use exam and course, 7 use exam or portfolio  Hard to enforce <60 cr. or or course)  Depending on score, students either junior-year requirements  Grand Valley State (MI) (Jr-level essay take upper-division service course, WI  Logistics of finding and scored locally by 2 profs in discipline, course in major, or nothing training local readers Either pass test or take U-D Writing course,  “Course” option is usually WI course  Standards can vary by also requires students to take 2 WI courses in major program and devolve without oversight

Assessment/  Gives programs autonomy and  Decentralization suits  Why have a requirement at  Clemson’s Pearce Center for Professional Outcomes support to develop and assess own individual units’ existing all if model is so Communication (Digital portfolio project, communication outcomes preferences and practices decentralized? (…or is this a gen ed pilot requirement)  Decentralizes control of curriculum  Can focus on integrating “pro”?)  NC State’s Campus Writing and Speaking  Allows for diverse units to create research to determine  Does not assure core writing program (outcomes assessment project) what's most appropriate for their discipline-specific outcomes experience for all students  LSU’s Communication Across the students  Time-consuming to Curriculum Program (“Certified Excellent  Hence any "standard" requirements implement on per program Communicator”) are very minimal basis  Miami of Ohio’s Center of Writing  Might also call this the “institute”  Might not hold up over time Excellence (Uses grants for various model, or the “culture change with deep  This model typically exists at workshops, initiatives) pockets” model programs funded by generous endowments used to support “incentive-based” initiatives Communication  Emphasizes multiple modes of  Recognizes writing/ speaking  Adds complexity LSU, Clemson, NC State, UNC Across the communication: written, spoken, visual, often connected  Requires interdisciplinary Greensboro, Pittsburg, Delaware, Southern Curriculum digital  Recognizes shifts in modes leadership Illinois University  Can be a feature of any of the above of communication, esp. digital models and visual  Accounts for multimodal learning, multiple intelligences  Establishes administrative structure, avoids redundancy  Allows for interdisciplinary participation and leadership  It’s the trend (more fundable initiative)