"Perspectives on the Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum: A Dialogue Between the Sciences and Humanities"

What Do the Writing Center, WAC, and the Sciences Tell Us?

After conducting this survey, some of the responses were exactly what I expected, while others turned out to be completely different then I anticipated.  Several points show through, however, with resounding clarity:  biology professors are not sure what the Writing Center can do for their students, biology students do not bring science papers to the Writing Center because they are afraid non-science majors cannot help them, and Peer Consultants desire advanced preparation in learning to handle papers from outside their own discipline.

The survey responses seem to indicate a disconnect or miscommunication between those involved with the Writing Center and those involved in the sciences in that consultants are unsure how best to help science students, science students are unsure if consultants will even be able to help them, and science professors wonder how the Writing Center can function for the writing they assign.  However, such miscommunication is certainly not exclusive to the Biology department alone, but must certainly expand in different ways across the entire university setting, and perhaps even to other Writing Centers at other colleges and universities.  Since every department and division expects a different definition of “good” writing of its students, the miscommunication observed through survey responses between the sciences and Writing Center is merely an indicator of a broader miscommunication among all departments on campus.  Let me be clear that I am certainly not suggesting that anything is being doneincorrectly in any of the areas I have examined, or others I have not.  Rather, my survey suggests only that there is a lack of communication in regard to different WAC initiatives across campus, the process of writing, services provided by the Writing Center, and writing expectations from within the specific disciplines.

The resounding reply from the science professors as to what the Writing Center can do for them is to advertise the services of the Writing Center to the science students and professors alike to explain what types of services the Writing Center can supply and how to seek such services.  Since some science students are unaware of the existence of the Writing Center (SM 18), and some professors indicate that even they are unsure of what the Writing Center can do for students, it seems publicity on the part of the Writing Center is key.  Beyond the generalist-versus-specialist debate, the Writing Center can advertise the ability of the Peer Consultants to look through a paper for global issues—such as whether or not the paper has a valid argument—rather than line editing while ignoring the subject of a paper.

No single clear-cut solution exists as yet to bridge the communication gaps between the WAC initiative, the Writing Center, and the various departments and divisions on campus, but there are certainly ways to get closer to a mutual understanding of what everyone desires to learn from the writing practice.  Writing Across the Curriculum emphasizes the idea of learning to write and writing to learn (McLeod and Maimon), but such learning is only possible if everyone involved in the program across campus discusses what each department desires its students to obtain from the initiative.  Critics, such as Heather G. Lettner-Rust and her colleagues, suggest in the article “Writing Beyond the Curriculum:  Transition, Transfer, and Transformation,” that each department needs to articulate what it believes “good” writing to be and share such ideas not only with the students within that department, but also across the university, especially with those involved with the Writing Center (Lettner-Rust et al.).  Through such round-table discussions, the communication gaps and possible incorrect assumptions of what different segments of the university expect from student writing can begin to be bridged.  When those communication gaps between the disciplines are bridged, the Writing Center, in turn, will be better equipped to serve the WAC initiative as a whole and each department individually, thus creating an even more positive experience for everyone involved.

It appears that just as no two writing centers are the same, no two approaches to bridging the communication gaps between the WAC initiative, the Biology department, and the Writing Center will have the same final outcome.  However, just as each individualized Writing Center is able to serve the purposes of its audience with success, plans can be designed to bridge the gaps between the disciplines and the Writing Center at Wilkes.  Although several critics suggest undergraduate-level writing courses focusing on science (Jerde and Taper, Felzien and Cooper, and Carlson) as a solution to this problem, the first key step to the Writing Center expanding its abilities more successfully to student writers in the science, or any discipline for that matter, is through communication.  Sharon Stockton, in her article “Students and Professionals Writing Biology:  Disciplinary Work and Apprentice Storytellers,” indicates that professors can share what they believe makes writing successful while the Writing Center can share how consultants working there are able to help students in the sciences with global as well as local paper concerns (95).  Furthermore, bridging interdisciplinary divides is largely a matter of definition.  For example, the Writing Mentors help bridge such gaps by navigating the gray space, or as Jill Gladstein explains, the intersection between the professor’s expectations, the student’s abilities, and the Consultant who navigates between the two.  Writing Mentors not only navigate the gray space of writing expectations and realities, but they also help bridge the communication gaps by spending time in the classroom, and since that program has been instated, Writing Mentors at Wilkes have served in a variety of classroom situations across campus.  Yet, the Writing Mentor program alone cannot bridge all the communication gaps.  Just as “good” writing needs to be clearly defined in each discipline, we need to employ an interdisciplinary language to examine writing, as Nowacek points out, in order to allow students to understand the similarities and differences of writing across the curriculum (511).

Of course, determining the best approach to bridging these communication gaps will be idiosyncratic to Wilkes University and require extensive discussions and re-evaluations of the programs in place as well as how to enhance the experience for students and professors alike.  Such examinations at other institutes of higher learning could potentially yield the opportunity to bridge similar communication gaps, but every aspect of how to approach such gaps would be unique to any individual Writing Center.  One thing that can certainly be taken from such an examination of the work of the Writing Center, the WAC initiative, and any discipline across campus is to realize, as one of my mentors once said to me, “writing is never done, period” (Hebert-Leiter).  Just as stopping myself in talking about these subjects is hard to do because I feel there is still so much more to say, the act of writing, as Donald Murray points out, is a continuous process, and the WAC initiative and writing in every discipline should also be looked at as processes so that we might create the most valuable learning experience for everyone involved.