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 rad-
ically altered higher education's marginalization of writing instruc-
tion. 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 universi-
ties 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 for-
mer 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, com-
munity-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, infor-
mation 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 under-
stand 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. Re-
search 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. Accord-
ingly, 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 com-
munity-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 writ-
ing 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. Accord-
ing 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 "bot-
tom-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 wide-
spread efforts to move beyond the first stage of the movement. His-
torically, in the initial stage of WAC reform, faculty and/or
administrators begin to embrace the concept, attend professional-
development 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 require-
ments. 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 work-

shop 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 course-

numbering system that revolves around state-approved course out-
lines. 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 syl-
labi statewide are structured around personal narration, compari-
son/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 English-
composition 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 communi-
ties—just as illiteraey or ineffective writing can deny avenues for ad-
vancement. 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, par-
tisan 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 appar-
ent 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 curri-
cula at the college level. The ability to write clear, well-structured fac-
tual knowledge is important. However, if it becomes the primary
focus of English-composition courses, we are then left to ponder pre-
cisely 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 ar-
gument 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 smal-
ler 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 discipline-
specific 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 wide-
spread application may result in it becoming counterproductive and
ineffective.
At some universities, for example, WAC may occur in lecture-
hall-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 teach-
ing assistants do not exist. A common solution to large class sizes is
to incorporate writing assignments, but to assign no grades or feed-
back. 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 man-
ner 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 writ-
ing. 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 be-
come at it. Writing improves significantly only if students are receiv-
ing 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 feed-
back 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 solv-
ing 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 assign-
ments, 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 mixed-
purpose 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 assign-
ments 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 inordi-
nately 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 per-
centage of faculty members participate in such development opportu-
nities. 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 facilita-
tors 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 miti-
gated 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 encour-
age critical thinking and communications skills. Despite these advan-
tages, 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 disci-
plines may, at times, actually serve to undermine the goals of this move-
ment. 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 tech-

niques 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 begin-
ning to adapt writing for learning other disciplines. Such opportu-
nities 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 resist-
ance.

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 pro-
gram administrators—a common approach at numerous colleges
and universities—although necessary, is not sufficient to ensure effec-
tive implementation of writing across the curriculum for either fac-
ulty 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 col-

lege courses, academic standards will continue to fall, faculty frus-
tration 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(\(i), 3-7.
Berthoff, A. E. (1997). Is teaching still possible? Writing, meaning, and higher order
reasoning. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory (pp. 307-322).
Urbana, IL: NCTE Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. New York: Longman.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foote, E. (1999). Writing across the curriculum in community colleges. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 23(2), 211-16.
Fulwiler, T. (1984). How well does writing across the curriculum work? In
C. Bazearman & D. Russell (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing across the curricu-
lum (pp. 51-64). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
Grant, M. R. & Keim, M. C. (2002). Faculty development in publicly supported
two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 793-
807.
Hansman, C. A. & Wilson, A. L. (1998). Teaching writing in community colleges:
A situated view of how adults learn to write in computer-based writing class-
rooms. Community College Review, 26(1), 21-41.
Kelly-KJeese, C. (2001). An open memo to community college faculty and adminis-
trators. Community College Review, 29(\), 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 account-
ability. 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 cur-
riculum (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 two-
year 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).