"Striking while the iron is hot" A Writing Fellows Program Supporting Lower-Division Courses at an American University in the UAE
by Lynne Ronesi
Abstract: US-based writing fellows programs have traditionally placed writing fellows in upper-division courses to... more Abstract: US-based writing fellows programs have traditionally placed writing fellows in upper-division courses to support student writing beyond first-year composition, given that student writing skills become more developed in the context of genre- or discipline-based writing. The author describes a writing fellows program at the American University of Sharjah (AUS) in the United Arab Emirates where, despite initial attempts to place writing fellows in upper-division courses, faculty requests for writing fellows came from classes at the 100- and 200-level, resulting in students receiving writing fellow assistance while still enrolled in introductory writing courses. Drawing on interviews with professors, writing fellows, and students in three lower-division writing fellow-supported courses, the author concludes that writing fellows at AUS are quite effectively placed in lower-division courses running concurrently with first-year sequence writing courses due to the immense learning curve AUS students face in their first few semesters. First-year transition challenges can be characterized by the differing pedagogical approaches of various secondary educational systems, divergent cultural attitudes toward learning and teaching, students' inexperience with American university-style academic writing and writing conventions, and the disparity between the content of the first-year writing sequence, suggesting that even in introductory courses AUS students need writing support earlier in addition to later in their university life. Writing fellow intervention in these lower-division courses introduces and provides a network of support that students new to the university—and their professors—do not know how to access on their own.
The Massey Writing Across the Curriculum Model: A manifesto for the renaissance of an international business school?
Mellalieu, P. J. (2007, July 6). The Massey Writing Across the Curriculum Model: A manifesto for the renaissance of an international business school? Peter Mellalieu - Teacher. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://preview.tinyurl.com/masseywac
How could the Massey Writing Across the Curriculum model be adapted to the context of a renewing international... more How could the Massey Writing Across the Curriculum model be adapted to the context of a renewing international business school? The Massey model was developed in the context of a research-focussed university science faculty (Emerson, 2004). The Unitec Business School is undergoing pre-revolutionary changes in response to policy changes at the institutional and national educational levels. The business school possesses a cohort of staff with strong capabilities in communications. Furthermore, members of the school hold strong commitments towards developing pedagogies that support learning that is relevant to the real world contexts into which students will graduate. Accordingly, it is possible to devise a manifesto for implementing curriculum development in the Unitec Business School by drawing from the lessons of the Massey Writing Across the Curriculum experience.
Download (.pdf) Writing to learn argument and persuasion: A'Trojan Horse'for promoting the adoption of'Writing Across the Curriculum'(WAC) principles in an international …
Mellalieu, P. J. (2008). Writing to learn argument and persuasion: A “Trojan Horse” for promoting the adoption of “Writing Across the Curriculum” (WAC) principles (Working paper). Auckland, NZ: Unitec New Zealand Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship.
In response to feedback from employers that was critical of business graduates’ writing capability, the article... more
In response to feedback from employers that was critical of business graduates’ writing capability, the article presents the results of a process of continuous innovation that aimed to develop business students' skills in formal writing, especially written persuasive argument. The learning environment created to achieve this task was informed by a selection of the principles and practices of a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) programme implemented in New Zealand (Emerson, 1999, 2002, 2004).
The techniques were deployed within one specific course - organisational behaviour - in a class where students had little affection for formal writing tasks. Furthermore, the institution had no commitment towards implementing a formal WAC programme, and the teacher/researcher had no formal education in language teaching. Consequently, the study presents results of a 'pathfinder' study aimed at probing the extent to which WAC principles might be of value in achieving the learning outcomes sought by the business school.
An orchestrated sequence of interventions included the adoption of five-paragraph essay writing, Halswell’s Minimal Marking (1983), peer critiques, and McAlpine’s Global English (1997) as a style guide. A Small Group Instructional Diagnostic (SGID) conducted at the conclusion of the formal teaching sessions identified the reasons why most students valued the interventions as contributing to important developments in their academic literacy.
Carroll (2005) argues that ‘teachers themselves remain the most significant facilitator of students’ adjustments to studying in English’. Accordingly, the investigation presents practical strategies that can be implemented by a motivated teacher in a variety of courses - irrespective of course content - in a manner which minimises risk to both student and teacher, and do not require extensive language teaching skills on the part of the teacher.
10 views
Seen by:
14 views
Seen by:
Interpersonal Stance in L1 and L2 Students' Argumentative Writing in Economics: Implications for Faculty Development in WAC/WID Programs
This article offers a linguistic analysis of interpersonal stancetaking in four argumentative term papers written in... more This article offers a linguistic analysis of interpersonal stancetaking in four argumentative term papers written in an upper-level undergraduate course in economics. Two of the papers were written by English L2 writers who experienced particular difficulty with the assignment and two by English L1 writers who received the highest grades among the forty students in the course. My analysis is guided by the question of how recurring patterns of interpersonal meanings operate to construct an argumentative stance that indexes, or not, the specific goals and expectations for writing in the course. Considered alongside interviews with the professor and the graduate student instructor (GSI) who graded and commented on the papers, my analysis draws on the Engagement framework from systemic functional linguistics (Martin & White, 2005), which has proven useful in recent years for understanding the ways both professional and student writers (Chang & Schleppegrell, 2011; Derewianka, 2009; Wu, 2007) use language to construct an authorial stance within specific disciplinary contexts. Following my analysis, I consider implications of this line of research for working with English L2 writers in upper-level courses in the disciplines.
When In Rome (April 2011) in Study Abroad and the City (Special Issue)
From "About" Frontiers (http://www.frontiersjournal.com/index.htm)
The purpose of Frontiers is to publish thought-provoking research articles, insightful essays, and concise book reviews that may provide the profession of study abroad an intellectual charge, document some of the best thinking and innovative programming in the field, create an additional forum for dialogue among colleagues in international education, and ultimately enrich our perspectives and bring greater meaning to our work.
Since its founding at Boston University in 1994, Frontiers has established itself as an important and serious journal for international educators. Currently, there are over 1,300 institutional and individual subscribers in over 25 countries.
A double-blind international peer review process is used in judging all manuscripts for publication. A minimum of three readers review each manuscript. The articles that appear in Frontiers are selected by its editors in consultation with external reviewers.
Abstract
"When in Rome” describes the development of St. John's University’s Summer Faculty Writing... more
Abstract
"When in Rome” describes the development of St. John's University’s Summer Faculty Writing Institute at its Prati campus in Rome and explores how faculty participants’ learning experiences abroad are enriched by the institution’s deep historical and religious connection to Rome as well as the modern city of Rome. “When In Rome” also contends that creating a scholarly, reflective space for faculty to build a learning community far from their daily life on a campus in the United States is a powerful institutional investment in both faculty development and global education. The kind of faculty study abroad discussed in “When in Rome” can lead to new collaborations within and across departments and the development of new courses with an international perspective. As well, having experienced study abroad themselves, faculty return to their home campuses with new perspectives on their disciplines as well as the value of international experiences in cities.
Teaching and Learning With Multilingual Faculty
In Across the Disciplines
Special Issue: WAC and Second Language Writing: Cross-field Research, Theory, and Program Development
This article draws on a survey of 64 self-identified multilingual faculty from across the disciplines who currently... more This article draws on a survey of 64 self-identified multilingual faculty from across the disciplines who currently teach with writing in English at the undergraduate and graduate level. The survey asked faculty about their linguistic experiences from childhood through the present and thus offers insights about the complexity of multilingual faculty members' language lives. The author contextualizes her findings in the literature critiquing WAC/WID as a standardizing force in the academy and the literature identifying the English monolingual biases of composition studies. The article concludes with recommendations for working against the common assumption that faculty who teach with writing in English are linguistically homogenous and suggests that changes in faculty development could nurture WAC/WID programs that work against language standardization.
Student and Professor Caricatures: Where do Perception and Reality Split?
by Kelly Cooper
Presented at CCCCs in 2008
Students often enter writing centers with deficient attitudes, claiming that they are performing poorly in their... more Students often enter writing centers with deficient attitudes, claiming that they are performing poorly in their classes because their professors either do not like them, do not care about any students in general, or are completely impossible to understand. While writing center tutors recognize that much of the information shared in these stories is exaggerated, there must be some reason for students to relay the same comments semester after semester. This study uncovers the reasons behind these exaggerated tales, and it also proposes solutions to some of the problems that cause these stories, which – while exaggerated – still exist to some degree.
Poetry: It’s Not Just for English Class Anymore
“Poetry: It’s Not Just for English Class Anymore.” Co-authored with Patricia Connor-Green, Jan Murdoch, and Art Young. Teaching of Psychology 32:4 (Winter 2005): 215-21.
75 views
Seen by:
Poetry Across the Curriculum: Four Disciplinary Perspectives.
“Poetry Across the Curriculum: Four Disciplinary Perspectives.” Co-authored with Art Young, Patricia Connor-Green, Jerry Waldvogel. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 6:2 (June 2003): 14-44.
The Difficulty of Believing in Writing Across the Curriculum
Peter Elbow selected this article for inclusion in this special issue.
From the expanded Table of Contents:
Here’s what I wondered: What would happen if we tried to consider... more
From the expanded Table of Contents:
Here’s what I wondered: What would happen if we tried to consider writing across the curriculum work through the lens of Peter Elbow’s “methodological believing.” If we were to believe that every faculty person in the university is a writer, thinks about writing, and teaches writing in his or her own way, what “virtues” would we find that doubting leads us to “disqualify” (Elbow 7)?
Workshopping to Practice Scientific Terms
(Co-authored with Frank Cantelmo, biology, SJC) Teaching with Student Texts: Essays Toward An Informed Practice. Eds. Chuck Paine, Joseph Harris and John Miles. Logan:Utah State University Press, 2011.