¶ 3 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 3 0 With 2 billion euros devoted to the 2010 Quality Pact for Teaching (Federal; Klumpp), Germany continued its ambitious effort to transform higher education pedagogy to meet the needs of the 21st century. Many approaches have been taken towards that goal, including innovative work to adapt Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) to the German higher education context. This paper will explore how both WAC and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) have evolved in the United States, raising questions and possibilities about ways German educators might reach their own goals for learning and teaching.
¶ 4 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 4 0 This conference comes exactly at the right time. The conference’s papers represent the creativity and intellectual verve that German staff have invested in WAC’s project, which is to integrate writing into the curricula of the disciplines and professions. We have arrived at a perfect moment to consolidate and reflect on the breadth and depth WAC’s achievements in Germany over the past 30 years and to contemplate “What’s Next?”
¶ 5 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 5 1 This is also a perfect time to investigate WAC’s potential relationship with a newer pedagogical reform movement, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. SoTL and WAC have lived side by side for years like neighbors in a large apartment building. In the elevator, they say hello and comment on the weather. Even though they have parallel goals, methods, and challenges, they do not engage in a deeper conversation. With your help, we will begin that conversation by considering what these two movements could contribute to the reform of German higher education if they partnered.
¶ 6 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 6 0 The WAC and SoTL movements in higher education both began in the United States. We’ll briefly describe their histories. We hope that understanding their original context and subsequent development will help you identify, appreciate, and address the subtleties and appropriate adaptations of their German incarnations.
¶ 7 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 7 0 We will begin this conversation, ask some questions at the end of our presentation, and join you in a discussion at 2:00 Thursday after you’ve had time to formulate your own thoughts in the context of the papers you read in the meantime.
The Evolution of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the United States
¶ 8 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 8 0 In one of the foundational articles of an emerging Scholarship of Teaching and Learning movement, Randy Bass (1999, p. 1) contrasted the nature of research and teaching “problems” for faculty in American higher education:
¶ 9 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 9 0 In scholarship and research, having a problem is the heart of the investigative process; it is the compound of the generative questions around which all creative and productive activity resolves. But in one’s teaching, a ‘problem’ is something you don’t want to have, and if you have one, you probably want to fix it. Asking a colleague about a problem in his or her research is an invitation; asking about a problem in one’s teaching would probably seem like an accusation. Changing the status of the problem in teaching from terminal remediation to ongoing investigation is precisely what the movement for a scholarship of teaching is all about. How might we make the problematization of teaching a matter of regular communal discourse? How might we think of teaching practice, and the evidence of student learning, as problems to be investigated, analyzed, represented, and debated?
¶ 10 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 10 0 The frustration Bass articulates with the status of teaching in US higher education echoes the influential work of Ernest Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered (1990). Looking back across the rapid evolution of American universities in the twentieth century, and noting the striking new challenges facing higher education and the world as the Cold War ended, Boyer urged faculty and institutions “to move beyond the tired old ‘teaching versus research’ debate and give the familiar and honorable term ‘scholarship’ a broader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scope of academic work” (p. 16).
¶ 11 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 11 0 The concept of a “scholarship” of teaching and learning emerged out of Boyer’s call for rethinking the priorities of the professorate. From the 1990s into the early 2000s, a coherent vision of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) came into focus. In the United States, SoTL has never had a single definition, but across its many variations SoTL tends to share at least three characteristics outlined in these early years:
- ¶ 12 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 12 0
- SoTL is a form of scholarly inquiry. As Hutchings and Shulman explain, SoTL “requires a kind of ‘going meta’ in which faculty frame and systematically investigate questions related to student learning” (in Shulman, 2004, p. 151). The most common form of SoTL inquiry is a three-step cycle that begins with a question about student learning that launches and guides the inquiry – what Bass called a “teaching problem.” The SoTL scholar then gathers and analyzes evidence related to that question, often by focusing on the writing or other demonstrations of student learning being produced in a course. In the final step of this cycle, the SoTL scholar uses what they have learned from analyzing the evidence to inform and improve their teaching related to their original question – and the scholar also usually shares what they have learned from their inquiry with colleagues so that others can benefit from and critique this work.
- ¶ 13 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 13 2
- SoTL scholars draw on their disciplinary training to conduct that inquiry. In other words, SoTL is not simply a form of educational or social science research applied in university classrooms. Instead, SoTL has “disciplinary styles” (Huber & Morreale, 2002) that may reflect and build on the expertise and research methodologies of the faculty who are inquiring into student learning. SoTL scholars are not constrained to only asking questions rooted in their fields or simply using disciplinary research tools to analyze student learning; instead, they should draw on – and sometimes extend – their disciplinary training to ask questions, to gather and interpret evidence, and to “go public” with their findings about learning and teaching.
- ¶ 14 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 14 0
- SoTL scholars aim to use their inquiry to improve their own teaching and their own students’ learning. In the US, SoTL is a form of applied research that tends to be classroom-oriented rather than theory- or hypothesis-driven (Felten, 2013). SoTL scholars typically share their work with peers for critical review and to enhance teaching practice more broadly, but the driving motivation for most SoTL activity is the improvement of teaching and learning in the scholar’s own classroom.
¶ 15 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 15 5 These shared characteristics have seeded the widespread flowering of SoTL practice across US higher education in the past twenty years. SoTL has become a signature feature of many educational development centers in America, using classroom-based inquiry to support pedagogical improvement initiatives (Felten & Chick, 2018). All of this campus-based activity has allowed for the growth of local, disciplinary, and general SoTL journals, and SoTL publications now routinely appear in some of the leading US scholarly journals in different disciplines. Recently, prominent SoTL voices in the US (e.g., Chick, 2019) have encouraged the cultivation of more public-facing forms of SoTL that speak directly to the concerns of students and the broader community about the purposes, effectiveness, and outcomes of teaching and learning in higher education.
¶ 16 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 16 3 The focus of SoTL inquiries in the United States also has evolved over the past two decades. Early SoTL research often emerged from questions about student learning of specific disciplinary knowledge, skills, or capacities. Although many of these pioneering studies began as highly contextual inquiries, both their research methods and their results influenced SoTL scholars in many other disciplines; for example, the History Learning Project at Indiana University started as an inquiry into questions about first-year student learning in history courses, yet this project spawned the “Decoding the Disciplines” SoTL research methodology that has been adapted to explore questions far from its original disciplinary home (Middendorf & Shopkow, 2017; Pace, 2017). These early SoTL studies also underscored how learning is not a purely disciplinary process; instead, affective, social, and meta-cognitive factors powerfully influence student learning, and SoTL scholars now frequently focus their inquiries on these factors (Ciccone, 2018). More recently, SoTL scholars have begun to systematically integrate students as partners with faculty into the entire inquiry process, providing new perspectives into learning and teaching (e.g., Cook-Sather et al., 2014).
¶ 17 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 17 13 Despite this rapid growth and evolution in SoTL practice, core challenges remain in the US Many institutions and disciplines continue to wrestle with the question of whether SoTL is a legitimate form of high-quality, disciplinary scholarship that should count towards decisions about promotion and tenure. These persistent questions mean that some faculty, particularly new faculty, may shy away from serious SoTL inquiry until they have been promoted, if they ever pursue it at all. SoTL also assumes teaching is a form of practice that can be improved through careful study and revision; some faculty and administrators, on the other hand, continue to see teaching as a performance and to believe that effective teaching is based more on innate qualities like charisma than on anything which can be developed. If teaching quality is rooted in personality, why bother with SoTL? Finally, legitimate questions remain about the actual benefits – particularly the benefits to students – of SoTL inquiry. Does scholarly work on your teaching actually yield more or deeper student learning? As we will explain below, an increasing body of evidence demonstrates that, yes, SoTL contributes to enhanced student learning (e.g., Condon et al., 2016).
SoTL in Action: Examples from This Conference
¶ 18 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 18 0 Many of the papers in this conference have adopted and adapted a SoTL inquiry cycle like the one that has evolved in the United States to answer questions about learning and teaching in German higher education contexts.
¶ 19 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 19 0 For instance, Freise and Schubert ask if the feedback professors give students on writing “leads to disciplinary socialisation.” By using a grounded theory approach to analyzing 3 student texts and the 149 comments made by the professor on these texts, they find evidence “that students are taking steps toward disciplinary socialisation during the writing, feedback and revision process.”
¶ 20 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 20 0 Similarly the paper by Hippchen, using Decoding the Disciplines interviews with students and teachers along with surveys and statistical analysis, begins with a question about the “’bottlenecks’ experienced by students during the introductory phase of their history studies.” Like much of the recent SoTL in the US that consider both disciplinary considerations and affective factors in learning, this paper finds that students not only “struggle with the genre and text type, and with the (sometimes unspoken) rules governing academic writing” but that students also “feel intimidated by the task for writing seminar papers.”
¶ 21 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 21 0 Finally, Kuchler begins with a simple yet profound question that transcends any one discipline: “How can the quality of students’ writing be improved?” This inquiry into student writing in sociology uses three distinct procedures and a range of evidence to conclude: “Learning is not only an intellectual but also a social endeavor; it requires not only cognitive skills, but also emotional qualities such as courage and curiosity, trust and bonding, ambition and endurance.”
¶ 22 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 22 1 These three papers, and the others in this conference, represent a deep and broad collection of SoTL inquiries into writing and learning in German universities. Many offer promising evidence of student learning and effective approaches to teaching. Some also provide a helpful caution about the difficulty of understanding the complexity of writing and writing instruction in German higher education; for example, Cordes and Warzecha discover a “large variance” in student self-assessments that echoes what scholars in the US have described as a central challenge in SoTL – the variation in student learning within a single course often is so vast as to make it difficult to support any generalized claims about student learning (Blaich & Wise, 2011). One way to navigate that difficulty is to weave together individual SoTL studies into a broader tapestry of shared inquiry; this conference, and the Writing Across the Curriculum movement more broadly, might provide a rich opportunity to cultivate collaborative SoTL inquiries that could lead to significant new scholarship on and improvement of teaching and learning in German higher education.
Evolution of Writing Across the Curriculum in the United States
¶ 23 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 23 0 WAC ‘s overall goal is identical with SoTL’s: enhancing teaching and learning. However, it had a much different origin. SoTL started with an aspiration to give more recognition to the intellectual work of teaching, while Writing Across the Curriculum sprouted from the fertile ground of dissatisfaction—dissatisfaction felt for a century with the weak writing abilities of college students and graduates.
¶ 24 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 24 5 Early in US history, all students at a college followed the same curriculum, taking the same classes as a cohort through their years of study. There were no departments. A faculty member might teach any of its subjects. Written and oral communication (declamation) could be practiced in any course. However, as the country’s population gradually moved west and universities grew larger, newer schools developed courses of study aligned with professions and disciplines. By the 1880s, the German model of a university arranged in departments populated with specialists dominated throughout the nation. Writing instruction was delegated to English departments, which developed the first-year composition course, which had no parallel in Germany then or now (Bazerman et al.,2005; Brereton, 1995; Russell, 1991).
¶ 25 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 25 0 Educators believed that writing in any field or context required the same fundamental writing competencies, which the composition course would teach. However, faculty in the disciplines found that students were unable to write effectively in their programs. Employers complained, too. At many schools the English department faced stinging criticism for failing to teach the essential writing abilities.
¶ 26 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 26 0 In rebuttal, English departments replied that disciplinary departments should take partial responsibility by including writing instruction in their programs. Writing, they argued, is an ability that develops over years. A single course in the first-year is not enough to develop students’ writing abilities to the level desired inside the university or outside after graduation. Just as the majority of faculty in the disciplines said they could not participate in SoTL because they were not trained to conduct social science research, many faculty maintained that they could not incorporate writing into their courses because they were not trained to teach writing. Also, time they devoted to writing would diminish their ability to cover a course’s essential content.
¶ 27 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 27 1 New understandings of the relationship between communication and cognitive development emerged in the 1960s and 1970s that produced the foundation for the WAC movement as it exists today in the US and Germany. British educator Britton (1970) shared with his US colleagues research with school-age students that indicated that writing can be an effective tool to help students learn. Emig, a US scholar, came to a similar conclusion, which appeared in two watershed publications: The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders (1971) and “Writing as a Mode of Learning” (1977).The belief that writing could promote learning provided WAC adherents with a rejoinder to faculty in the disciplines who asserted that addressing writing would take time away from essential course content. On the contrary, writing could help students learn that content.
¶ 28 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 28 0 Later developments in writing theory argued that the distinctive features of writing in a discipline—its characteristic genre, style, etc.—revealed its intellectual structure. Learning to write like a biologist or economist was to learn how to think like one, thereby becoming enculturated into the field. Including writing in disciplinary courses—writing across the curriculum— helped students learn more than factual content. It helped them develop and perform the identity of a member of their disciplinary communities.
¶ 29 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 29 0 Russell (2006) has described WAC as a grassroots movement that aimed to change pedagogy throughout the US. Advocates for WAC, almost all writing specialists in English departments, shared strategies at conferences of other organizations, through informal networks, and by a slowly growing number of publications. In 1993, the first biennial WAC conference was jointly sponsored by Clemson University, Cornell University, University of Charleston, and the Citadel. At the end of that conference and subsequent ones, the responsibility for hosting was passed on to the next school to volunteer. The Association for Writing Across the Curriculum was formally establish in 2019, more than 40 years after WAC’s beginning. During those decades faculty in other countries became interested in WAC. Formal and informal organizations exist in many regions around the world.
¶ 30 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 30 0 In its early years, WAC in the US concentrated on increasing the amount of writing in courses by offering interdisciplinary workshops that attracted faculty already desiring to improve student writing. The workshops often suggested short, generalized assignments and exercises, such as keeping journals and one-minute papers in which students recorded at the end of a class period what they learned or didn’t understand.
¶ 31 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 31 0 WAC advocates soon advocated more extended attention to writing in the disciplines. Eager to find an institution-wide response to complaints about student writing, many schools established writing-intensive (WI) course requirements. At many US universities, students now must take one, two, or three courses offered by any department in which they wrote a certain number of words, received feedback on a draft, and fulfilled other conditions.
¶ 32 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 32 0 More recently, WAC has emphasized the relation between writing and development of disciplinary knowledge. Some institutions require departments to establish writing abilities their graduating seniors should possess and then create curricular plans that will help students develop these abilities over their years of study, Of course, each school has its own WAC history, which often is a story of time of significant institutional attention to writing followed by a period of relative neglect (Condon et al., 2012). That pattern persists today. In the US, some WAC programs are thriving while WAC initiatives are disappearing in other places (Thaiss, 1988), creating a desire among WAC advocates for research on the conditions that allow for sustainable WAC programs (Cox et al., 2018).
Wide Range of WAC Project Designs from This Conference
¶ 33 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 33 0 WAC specialists and adherents in the disciplines have explored and implemented a wide range of strategies for promoting student learning to write and writing to learn. While we could report on US projects, the conference papers hint at this range. They involve 13 disciplines and (by coincidence) are by faculty in 13 universities located throughout Germany. The variety of questions addressed is impressive: evaluating a Writing Fellows program (Hölzlhammer and Schäfer); evaluating partnerships between lecturers and writing centers (Schmidt); helping students in multidisciplinary fields explain the relevance of their work (Groß-Bölting); exploring the effects of instructor feedback and students’ socialization into a discipline (Freise and Schubert), to name a few.
¶ 34 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 34 2 Equally impressive is the range of types of data gathered in these projects: qualitative interviews with students, lecturers and administrators (Everke-Buchanan and Oberzaucher); detailed analysis of two students’ papers (Neumann); use of experimental and control groups (Kaimann and Rzehak); and self-assessments and instructor evaluation of texts (Cordes and Warzecha)—to name a few.
¶ 36 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 36 0 providing a starting point for further refinement of writing intensive courses (Simsek); increasing understanding of how to enhance students’ absorption and critical thinking (Ehls, Stahberg and Poleschny); and creation of a didactic concept for the bachelor’s degree in social work (Hüllemann and Spiroudis)
¶ 37 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 37 0 These kinds of outcomes would also be desirable results of SoTL projects. As our descriptions of WAC and SoTL demonstrates, the two are very similar though not identical. This similarity raises the question of what WAC and SoTL could do for one another if they looked for opportunities to partner.
Potential Benefits for WAC and SoTL Partnering
¶ 39 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 39 4 all SoTL and many WAC projects are forms of inquiry. They (1) pose a question, (2) gather evidence and (3) systematically interpret the evidence in light of the question. In fact, most WAC activities are SoTL projects whose questions concern writing. Their common grounding in inquiry suggest many ways they can partner. Of course, inquiry projects can vary greatly in their reliance—or non-reliance—on specialized research techniques, such as those involved with quasi-experimental studies. The following discussion begins with ways that WAC projects that do not involve specialized methods can be used to address questions disciplinary faculty may have about engaging in SoTL. The discussion then looks at ways SoTL can benefit WAC.
¶ 40 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 40 9 What will I gain? Most faculty will decline to engage in a new teaching and learning endeavor that is foreign to their own disciplinary training unless they are confident that the engagement will produce something valuable. Both SoTL and WAC offer the valuable promise of enabling faculty to enhance student learning in their courses. WAC leaders can help SoTL leaders demonstrate that fairly straightforward inquiry projects can produce impactful results. Many papers at this conference can be used this way. For example, Ehls, Stahberg and Poleschny asked this question, “What levels of reflection do students achieve when asked to write one-minute papers during self-study time rather than in class?” To answer, the faculty posted a short writing assignment online after each class meeting. The faculty gathered evidence by asking students to submit their responses to a dedicated learning platform. They interpreted the evidence by looking for statements in the student submissions that went beyond what was said in class, for instance by making connections not made in class. They found many, an answer to their question that indicated that they could increase student learning by assigning one-minute papers during self-study time.
¶ 41 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 41 10 Does gathering evidence require special expertise? SoTL leaders need to show disciplinary faculty that they don’t need expertise in social science research (just as WAC leaders need to show that disciplinary faculty don’t need training in the teaching of writing). Projects described in the conference papers employ a variety of methods of gathering evidence that require no special training. To evaluate the support given students’ development of literacy skills in a bachelor’s program, Hüllemann and Spiroudis gathered documents detailing the program’s curriculum. To assess the effectiveness of combining disciplinary content and language sensitive instruction, Spanier and Schröder simply collected the texts written by students. Kaimann and Rzehak had students complete a self-assessment survey.
¶ 42 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 42 2 Does analyzing the evidence require special expertise? In many projects interpretation of evidence involves simply looking carefully and critically for patterns related to the project’s core question. To learn how much progress first-year students could make at writing effective summaries in an introduction to philosophical methods course, Fehring gathered data by collecting the summaries students wrote in a third paper that followed two others for which received detailed faculty feedback. Fehring found the following pattern: “In the majority of cases improvements were visible only at the level of superficial textual phenomena.” For Fehring, this finding highlights the fact that learning to write in a discipline requires a long-term effort.
¶ 44 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 44 5 SoTL could also help SoTL researchers see the advantage of adopting direct assessment of students’ written work as the focus for determining the extent of student learning. The use of writing to assess student writing would be especially appropriate given the important role that Hausarbeiten play in German higher education. German SoTL researchers could be encouraged to focus on student writing to gauge student learning by suggesting that they use rubrics, which are widely used in the US to guide examination of student texts for cognitive development, critical thinking, and higher order thinking skills (Bean, 2011). Finally, insofar as SoTL projects increase a university’s faculty and administration inclination to honor and engage in teaching focused inquiry, SoTL creates a more favorable environment for WAC projects. Partnerships between WAC and SoTL have the potential to strengthen the ability of both in their pursuit of their common goal, enhancing student learning.
Questions for Your Consideration
¶ 45 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 45 0 We look forward to interacting with you online on Thursday from 2:00 to 4:00. As you read the conference papers, we hope you will keep the following questions in mind. We look forward to hearing your thoughts concerning them and to hearing the questions and thoughts about WAC and SoTL that you have to share with us and other conference participants.
- ¶ 46 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 46 2
- Could interest in WAC likely to be sustained and grow in Germany? SoTL? If so, how?
- What elements of or lessons from the development of WAC and SoTL in the US might be worth adapting in Germany, if any?
- At your university or for Germany as a whole, what should be next for WAC, SoTL, or both?
- Huber & Morreale (2002) maintain that SoTL has “disciplinary styles” that reflect and build on the expertise and research methodologies of the faculty who are inquiring into student learning. Most of the projects described in this conference’s papers appear to use general inquiry methods, not those of the author’s own discipline. Might WAC inquiries in German also have or develop “disciplinary styles” that allow for new or different forms of inquiry into writing and learning?
¶ 48 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 48 0 Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L. Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D. & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference Guide to Writing Across the Curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
¶ 49 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 49 0 Bean, J. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
¶ 50 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 50 0 Blaich, C., & Wise, K. (2011). From Gathering to Using Assessment Results: Lessons from the Wabash National Study, Occasional Paper #8. Urbana, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
¶ 54 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 54 0 Chick, N. (2019). SoTL as Public Scholarship. https://nancychick.wordpress.com/2019/03/28/sotl-as-public-scholarship/
¶ 55 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 55 0 Ciccone, A. (2018). Learning Matters: Asking Meaningful Question, 15-22, in N. Chick, ed., SoTL in Action: Illuminating Critical Moments of Practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
¶ 57 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 57 0 Condon, W., Iverson, E., Manduca, C., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty Development and Student Learning: Assessing the Connections. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
¶ 58 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 58 0 Condon, W. & Rutz, C. (2012). A Taxonomy of Writing Across the Curriculum Programs: Evolving to Serve Broader Agendas. College Composition and Communication 64(2): 357-382.
¶ 59 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 59 0 Cox, M, Galin, J. & Melzer, D. (2018). Sustainable WAC: A Whole Systems Approach to Launching and Developing Writing Across the Curriculum Programs. Champaign, IL: NCTE.
¶ 62 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 62 0 Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2020). Research in Germany. https://www.research-in-germany.org/en/about-us.html.
¶ 66 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 66 0 Klumpp, L., Pont, B., Figueroa, D., Albiser, E., Wittenberg, D., Zapata, J., & Fraccola, S. (2014). Educational Policy Outlook: Germany Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/education/EDUCATION%20POLICY%20OUTLOOK%20GERMANY_EN.pdfn
¶ 74 Kommentar schreiben zu Absatz 74 0 Thaiss, C. (1988). The Future of Writing Across the Curriculum, 91-102, in S. McLeod, ed., Strengthening Programs for Writing Across the Curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.