Xchanges >> Issue 6.1>> Perspectives on the Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum: A Dialogue Between the Sciences and Humanities

Perspectives on the Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum:

A Dialogue Between the Sciences and Humanities

Melissa Bugdal

When I set out to examine how the Wilkes University Writing Center can further help promote strong student writing as part of my senior undergraduate capstone project, I did not really know what exactly I was examining, or even what I was going to find.  Much like designing a scientific experiment, I simply started with an observation and a hunch.  As an employee of the Wilkes University Writing Center and a student with almost equal investment in both the English and Biology departments at Wilkes, I began to notice some disconnects between the different groups of students I was working with in the Writing Center, especially between the disciplines of the sciences and humanities.  As my semesters working in the Writing Center accumulated, I began to notice that the types of questions science majors asked during a consultation in the Writing Center were quite different than those who came to the Writing Center with papers written for courses in the humanities.  Although several students from various disciplines would come to the Writing Center asking for the consultant to look for grammatical errors in the paper, many students with humanities papers also asked for other aspects of the paper to be looked at as well, such as paragraph arrangement and argument construction.  Yet, their science peers did not; instead, they often stopped at the point of asking for the consultant to examine grammar and mechanics, and little more.  Due to my own experience as an employee of the Writing Center, as an English major, and from taking courses and working in the Biology department, I knew that writing in the sciences is essential, as science, at its very heart, is most interested in conveying information, often through writing.  Therefore, I could not grasp why science students who bring their papers to the Writing Center would not ask for the same kind of consultation as those from the humanities, and I began to suspect that students in disciplines outside of the humanities were possibly confused or unsure how the Writing Center could help them, and that perhaps, as an extension, confusion was circulating among Writing Center Consultants and science professors as well.

The Act of Writing

Stated plainly, writing is an act that is integral to success after graduating from college and upon entering “the real world.”  Whether a student is continuing his or her education or entering the job market, the skills of writing are absolutely necessary to achieve success.  Whether the genre is an e-mail to a colleague or a dissertation, proper writing skills include knowing how to create a rhetorically appropriate and effective communication, which could be the difference between getting the job, graduating from an academic program, or being unable to achieve success. 

Strong writing skills are not humanities-specific; in fact, all areas of study and professional work require effective writing in order to attain success.  Every discipline requires “good” writing of its students, yet what one discipline may consider an “A” paper, a different, even related discipline, could assign a failing grade.  Furthermore, individuals within the discipline—professors and students alike—may consider different forms of writing to be “good.”  An additional difference exists between the process and product of writing.  The overall process of writing is quite similar in many instances despite the genre or objective of the writing.  Yet, each discipline writes and speaks for a different audience, and therefore requirements in the final written product for any particular discipline will be inherently different from any other discipline. 

Despite differences in the final written product, all academic disciplines require their students to produce solid writing.  However, examining all academic disciplines at one time would prove impossible within the scope of this paper.  Therefore, I have chosen to focus my examination of the importance of writing outside of the humanities on biology—the non-English discipline I know best—in order to examine the relationship between the Writing Center, the Writing Across the Curriculum initiative, and the writing done by majors in biology in order to find out how each is viewed in relation to the others both from the outside in and inside out.  I argue that examining the idiosyncrasies of each of these areas and the interdisciplinary nature of the Writing Center can enable conversation which will create a more valuable experience for Wilkes University’s student writers who desire to bring their scientific assignments to the Writing Center.  Such an examination also benefits the Peer Consultants in the Writing Center who can learn new modes of writing, and even the science professors will benefit because they will be supported in turning out more successful student writers.  If “good” writing for each discipline is clearly defined by the professors, and if the communication gaps and implied assumptions of writing among different components of the university are bridged, then the Writing Center will be better able to serve the Writing Across the Curriculum initiative, and everyone—professors, students, and Writing Center consultants—will obtain invaluable experience and expertise in the discourse of writing, potentially even beyond the scope of Wilkes to other institutions of higher learning.

Since all science students will be engaging in writing-- whether it is through the publication of research or via the charts the student might later write up as a doctor or in the student’s later work as, perhaps, a science writer-- learning to write for the discipline at the undergraduate level is absolutely essential in order to effectively transmit information.  After all, science, at its very heart, is about discovering and sharing information, often through the act of writing.  Due to my specific interest in expanding Writing Center work within the sciences, I use that field as my example in this case; however, the principles and ideas I will discuss could be applied to any discipline across the University, and even beyond Wilkes University to other institutions of higher learning.

Writing as a Process

While the final written product created by student writers will differ between disciplines, research in the field of composition and rhetoric indicates that the process of writing is similar despite the audience or expectations of the discipline.  However, the process of writing itself is a complex activity, as students must learn certain requirements when writing, as well as the expectations for each genre of writing students will encounter within one course and across the disciplines. 

In order to understand how the Writing Center is able to help with the writing process, examining what constitutes the process itself is essential.  A notion in composition discourse and articulated by Donald M. Murray, in his article “Teaching Writing as a Process Not Product,” explains that writing should be taught as a step-by-step process.  Murray divides the process into three separate steps:  prewriting, writing, and rewriting (4).  Murray further splits each section by the rough percentage of time it takes to complete the overall process.  Murray defines prewriting as “everything that takes place before the first draft,” writing as “the act of producing a first draft,” and rewriting as the “reconsideration of the subject, form, and audience.  It is researching, rethinking, redesigning, rewriting—and finally, line-by-line editing, the demanding, satisfying process of making each word right” (4).  Murray posits that a large portion of the overall writing process is spent on what he defines as rewriting.  Depending on the course in which a student is enrolled, writing, prewriting, and rewriting may be done in the classroom itself if the course focuses on the act of writing, such as an English 101 course; or on the student’s own time if the course does not focus on classroom writing, such as an upper level offering in any given discipline.  If students are given the opportunity for peer review during class time, each is able to engage in the rewriting portion of the process with guidance; however, all three aspects of the writing process often occur outside the classroom and on the students’ own time.

Another problem for student writers comes during the rewriting and revising scenario when students have often only been taught to make singular line or word choice changes.  In a study comparing experienced and novice writers, Nancy Sommers found that students are not unwilling to revise, but rather that students have only been taught how to do revisions that are narrow in scope (48).  Students are sometimes not capable of fixing content issues or clarifying points in their papers because they have often only been taught or encouraged to change words to “make it sound better.”  As Murray points out, editing is more than just line-by-line editing, and such editing is listed last in Murray’s definition of rewriting.  Yet, as Sommers points out, students who are new to the college writing experience have often only been taught how to line edit, and to be asked to do more than this often leaves them asking Peer Consultants and instructors things such as, “what words do I need to change to get a better grade?” Questions such as these show the tendency of the student to focus on the product rather than the process of writing. 

The question of what to focus on—process or product—becomes further complicated when looked at from the Writing Center perspective.  Writing Centers typically deal primarily with the process of writing, but the final written product is what ultimately gets evaluated and given a grade.  The product is also what most student writers focus on, as it produces the most anxiety; it is the grade, after all, that seems to reflect on a student’s ability to write well.  Although Peer Consultants in the Writing Center are instructed not to pass judgment on the quality of student writing, as they are not the one assigning the grade, the student writer is often focused on the outcome of the process in order to secure a desired grade, and during consultations, students often insist that consultants focus on product-oriented concerns.  Such a dichotomy must be addressed by individual consultants and Writing Centers in order to come to an agreed-upon focus in terms of process versus product.

The Wilkes University Writing Center

The Wilkes University Writing Center works hard to serve all students who bring their writing there, and as the popularity of the Writing Center grows, so too must the thinking and discussions about how to make a visit to the Writing Center as valuable as possible.  As writing assignments evolve, and more students seek out the help of the Writing Center, the Center must continually explore ways to help everyone.  According to “A Writing Center Overview March 2009,” composed by the Wilkes University Writing Center Director Dr. William Chad Stanley, the Wilkes University Writing Center strives to offer “peer-based academic support for student writers at both the undergraduate and graduate levels” (Stanley). 

The Wilkes University Writing Center is situated within the English department, and typically employs about 30 undergraduate and a handful of graduate students from various majors.  Statistically speaking, the Wilkes University Writing Center is a popular campus institution, considering that Wilkes University is a small liberal arts university of approximately 2,300 full-time undergraduate students (Wilkes University).  In the 2006-2007 academic year, 596 gross visits were recorded.  In the 2007-2008 academic year, 911 gross visits were recorded.  These numbers represent a 165% increase in the number of recorded visits between the two academic years (Stanley).  Some unrecorded consultations also occur via e-mail, and outside of the physical space of the Writing Center; therefore, the actual number of visits for the 2007-2008 academic year is probably significantly higher (Stanley).  Dr. Stanley reported that during the years of 2004-2008, “student visits to the Wilkes Writing Center have increased by well over 200%,” and as survey responses from student writers indicate, they “perceive their writing consultation sessions as being highly-effective, and judge our Peer Consultants to be highly-skilled” (Stanley), all of which causes the Writing Center to continue to grow in popularity.  Such an increase in interest in the Writing Center leads to important questions:  how do students view the Writing Center, and how can those working in the Writing Center best serve student writers from across the disciplines?  Such notions of interdisciplinarity are especially important given the University’s adoption of the WAC model of writing.

The Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum 

The Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) movement started in 1980, and has proven to be the most successful method for teaching interdisciplinary writing to date (Russell 3).  As defined by two of the pioneers in the field, Susan McLeod and Elaine Maimon, WAC is:

a pedagogical reform movement that presents an alternative to the "delivery of information" model of teaching in higher education, to lecture classes and to multiple-choice, ture/false testing.  In place of this model, WAC presents two ways of using writing in the classroom and the curriculum:  writing to learn and learning to write in the disciplines.  (579)

In other words, rather than presenting information in formalized and informational lectures and expecting students to return the same information on exams, WAC strives to induce learning through the act of writing; as McLeod and Maimon put it, “writing to learn and learning to write” (579).  Such a method has two separate approaches, the first being the act of learning how to write, including aspects such as the mechanics, diction, and traditional rules of writing within the designated discipline.  The second approach is the concept of writing to learn, which uses the very act of writing in order for a student to learn a concept.  Given these two approaches then, ideally, WAC is a program that enables students to learn in as well as write for all the disciplines they will come across during their college career.  The WAC model also aides Writing Center consultants in that it focuses on the writing process rather than the product because writers in a WAC program are taught that the process is just as important as the final product. 

However, the problem often encountered with WAC, or any other interdisciplinary writing program for that matter, is as Rebecca S. Nowacek points out in her article, “Why Is Being Interdisciplinary So Very Hard to Do?,” that “we do not have a robust vocabulary for talking about the differences in writing in different [contexts], which can make the differences salient” (496).  As Nowacek explains, little interdisciplinary dialogue and terminology exists to examine writing across multiple university divisions.  Students often have a difficult time picking up on the nuances of writing for various disciplines because such differences are often not directly pointed out, nor is a fluid, universal writing method ever explained.  With no direct model of similarities and differences to follow in writing, students are often left to their own devices, trying to navigate through what individual instructors in the discipline desire in a paper, as well as the expectations of the discourse community as a whole.

WAC Initiatives in the Departments

The WAC model of teaching writing is one writing system which strives to close the interdisciplinary gaps Nowacek points out.  Since the Writing Center aims to help all students from all majors, the facility does not subscribe to any specific WAC initiative but instead looks to guide individual students through the writing process.  However, as part of the WAC initiative at Wilkes, every department developed and submitted a statement on WAC in its particular discipline when the program was put into place about three years ago.  Examining the submission documents from individual departments allows for an understanding of what the department defines as “good” writing, as well as a way to view departmental expectations of the final written product.  For example, the “Biology department Submission for Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC)” indicates that students learn to write like scientists by imitating the work of scientists in the writing they produce (“Biology department Submission for WAC”).  Throughout four years of coursework in biology, students are exposed to multiple genres of writing such as they would encounter in a science career.  Such writing involves “hypothesis generation and testing[…] formal [lab] report[s]” and the peer-review process (“Biology department Submission for WAC”).  All such situations are ones that students in biology will come across in a career in the field, and the department believes that exposure to these forms of documentation will allow students to create the same type of written product as they see in published format.  Because the Biology department wants “students [to] demonstrate understanding of both the structure and form of scientific written communication,” students must become intimately familiar with published literature in order to emulate what they see.  Consultants also need to be just as familiar as the students in the discipline with the expectations of the department in order to provide content-specific help.

 The writing process and some of the expectations between a formal lab report and a mock journal article will be related, yet the final product created for each assignment will have noticeable differences.  Recognizing differences between the assignments as well as differences between the writing process and final product brings into sharp focus the complicated channels that Writing Center consultants, as well as students writing papers for various general education and major courses, must navigate.  No one would expect a student to confuse a formal lab report with a poem; however, until students and professors examine the various WAC initiatives and the composition and rhetoric literature does it become clear that the writing act engaged to create each of these genres is vastly different.  Of course, the assignments themselves differ, but the ways in which students are taught, and the expectations of the professors for what “good” writing is also differ.  Such observations are often only readily apparent to “hybrid students”—those with a foot in several disciplines or working in the Writing Center—which leads such students to question what can be done to address concerns of process versus product and specific discourse expectations.  Given the feet I have in each field—English major, involvement in the Biology department, and Peer Consultant in the Writing Center—I am one of the students left thinking about how to best navigate the complexities of writing.  Furthermore, I am also left thinking about the notion of the generalist and specialist tutor.  In other words, to best serve the university at large, should the Writing Center strive to train several students specializing in certain areas, or instead, should the center focus on hiring an array of students who are less familiar with any one department; or finally, should some hybrid approach be taken? 

Generalists or Specialists and the Gray Space

At the Wilkes Writing Center, two distinctions in consulting positions exist:  Peer Consultants and Writing Mentors.  Every employee of the Writing Center is a Peer Consultant—a tutor who is able to help any student who comes to the Writing Center seeking guidance on a paper.  Meanwhile, Writing Mentors—also referred to as Writing Fellows or Writing Associates at other institutions—serve in a more specific role than Peer Consultants, and although they too can help anyone who comes to the Writing Center, the Writing Mentor is paired up with specific courses and instructors in order to help students in that particular course in a one-on-one situation. 

A continuous conversation is revolving in composition spheres in regard to WAC programs and the Writing Centers that serve them as to whether or not those Writing Mentors employed to support specific courses should be generalists in their work or more specialized in their knowledge of the courses they serve.  Although Wilkes employs Writing Mentors for more specialized purposes, the generalist versus specialist debate is not exclusive to such positions as the Writing Mentor or Peer Consultant distinction.  Many studies, such as one conducted by Jean Kiedaisch and Sue Dinitz discussed in their paper “‘Look Back and Say ‘So What’:  The Limitations of the Generalist Tutor,” address the generalist-versus-specialist question by focusing directly on Writing Center consultations, either by having the Writing Center director and other instructors analyze video-taped consultation sessions or asking the consultant and student writer to fill out consultation evaluation surveys immediately following the session (64).  However, few studies exist which examine the point of view of the student outside the confines of the Writing Center, and even fewer studies look at students who are not utilizing the Writing Center in a search for possible reasons, especially in relation to generalists and specialists.  The responses to the surveys I have distributed circle around the notion that students desire specialists to look over their papers while much of the literature indicates that, as far as Writing Center employees are concerned, generalist tutors are often described as the best option (Severino and Trachsel, Kiedaisch and Dinitz).

In line with studies determining the best approach—generalist or specialist—some critics are beginning to examine the correlation and success between generalist Peer Consultants working with students in specific classes versus specialized Consultants working with students in those same courses.  Susan M. Hubbuch offers the idea in her article “A Tutor Needs to Know the Subject Matter to Help a Student with a Paper:  Agree, Disagree, Not Sure” that the consultant “should be literate in a way that the ideal liberal arts education defines literacy” (30).  In other words, writing within a broad general liberal arts education, such as the one afforded at Wilkes, is the best way to circumvent the generalist-versus-specialist debate in order to help all students that walk through the door of the Writing Center.  Hubbuch’s explanation and evidence leading to this conclusion rest upon the idea that “a tutor cannot afford to be parochial, entering a session with a student with an inflexible, monolithic concept of ‘good’ writing” (Hubbuch 25).  Because every discipline requires and expects something different from its students, we know that writing varies across and even within a discipline. 

The generalist-versus-specialist debate is further complicated by the concept of the so-called gray space which the peer consultant occupies.  Jill Gladstein, in “Conducting Research in the Gray Space,” and many others in the field of composition theory, examines this gray space, or middle ground that the Peer Consultant finds themselves in with relation to those they aim to help.  In other words, the consultant serves as the bridge between the expectations the professor has for the assignment and how the students in the course deal with the assignment (Gladstein).  In this way, the consultant works “with” the professor “rather than for” the professor (Gladstein).  By serving in this middle space, especially in regard to the sciences, the consultant is able to:

negotiate and influence the writing pedagogy within a particular course.  This placement develops a sense of mutual understanding and respect between the writing program and faculty across the curriculum by acknowledging a professor’s belief in the connection between disciplinary knowledge and writing. (Gladstein)

In this middle space, the Peer Consultant can bridge the gap between what an individual professor desires in a paper and the expectations of the genre the student is writing for.  Furthermore, the Peer Consultant can encourage understanding of writing for a broader audience than just the individual course the student is writing for by navigating the gray space across the discipline, not just within a single course.

Peer Consultants are not just limited to the academic gray space.  In fact, when we put the generalist-versus-specialist discussion, the gray space, and concepts of WAC into focus, we allow for a closer examination of the specifics of writing at the university level, and new ways for Peer Consultants to aid students with writing are revealed.  In discussing aspects of writing and the writing process, writing becomes more than just an act, as Carol Severino and Mary Trachsel discuss, “writing [becomes] a performance that goes beyond the mere act of writing words on a page, to encompass modes of thinking,” especially in regard to interdisciplinary work (Severino and Trachsel).  By helping students comprehend the similarities and differences found in writing in any given course across the curriculum, Severino and Trachsel posit that Peer Consultants can help students in a variety of courses involving writing since more similarities than differences appear to exist across the disciplines in the writing process (Severino and Trachsel).  When we consider how writing encompasses ways of thinking, examining the opinions and perspectives of the people reviewing and grading writing becomes necessary in order to understand how writing and the WAC initiative function at the practical level.

Case Study:  Survey Responses From Across the Curriculum

In order to understand how these concepts—writing as a process, the Writing Center, and WAC theory and practice—work together in the context of our curriculum at Wilkes, I designed a questionnaire that I hoped would uncover how different segments of the student and professional population at Wilkes view writing, the Writing Center, and the WAC initiative.  The surveys I designed can be found at the end of this paper.  In order to approach this project in as un-biased a manner as possible, I tried to use my background and various conversations I have had with the groups of people I would be surveying in order to create questions which would lead to some possible explanations for how students and faculty view the work of the Writing Center.  I designed related questions for three groups—biology students, Peer Consultants, and biology professors.  Surveys were distributed in the Writing Center, in several biology classrooms, and in biology faculty mailboxes.  I asked individuals to fill out the surveys on their own time and return them to drop boxes I placed at the locations where I distributed surveys.  In an attempt to receive honest answers, I asked individuals to include as little personal information as possible..  Peer Consultants were asked their academic major and class year, while students in biology classes where the survey was distributed were also asked their academic major and class year, in addition to if they were employed in the Writing Center.

Once all responses for the three groups were obtained, I individually coded each response based on the group and the order in which I received it in order to be able to refer to specific examples.  Therefore, responses from biology students were coded as SM and given numbers beginning at one (SM1, SM2, etc.).  Responses from Peer Consultants were labeled PC (PC1, PC2, etc.), and responses from biology professors labeled SP (SP1, SP2, etc.).

The Biology Student Perspective

Of 588 total recorded consultations in the Writing Center between the Fall 2008 and beginning of Spring 2009 semesters, 139 papers were of scientific content, from the fields of biology, nursing, chemistry, engineering, pharmacy, and earth science.  This statistic indicates that some segments of students with science assignments are coming to the Writing Center; yet, the greatest portion of this number is made up of nursing and pharmacy papers.  Of 30 biology students surveyed in my study, 29 stated they have never taken a scientific paper to the Writing Center.  Of the 29 student survey responses, 14 indicated they think the Writing Center may be able to assist them with their papers.  This seems like an odd disconnect; students are not bringing their science papers to the Writing Center even though they feel that the Writing Center may be able to help them.  However, their responses as to why students believe the Writing Center may be able to help them seem to reveal the deeper reason behind biology students not bringing their writing to the Center.  Five of the 14 students who said the Writing Center would be helpful stated that a visit would be helpful to check for grammatical mistakes, while three more said a visit would be beneficial if a science major or someone familiar with the discourse community were to look at their paper.  In this way, it seems that biology majors view the Writing Center as a place to go for spellchecking and line edits, because the only way a consultation could be worth more than this is if someone who specialized in the sciences views the student’s paper.

Some students strongly desire people in their own field to look over their written assignments.  Pros and cons exist to such a way of thinking.  First of all, someone unfamiliar with the subject of the paper may be better able to point out moments of disconnect or places where the writer’s ideas do not flow smoothly.  On the other hand, someone familiar with the topic the student is writing about may be able to point out factual inconsistencies or think of additional ways to clarify complicated statistics or scientific knowledge.  Regardless of these and other pros and cons of both strategies, several students in the sciences replied to the surveys that they wish for “all majors to work there” (SM 27), in order to feel that they are gaining the maximum benefit from a visit to the Writing Center. 

Furthermore, a misconception exists among the students surveyed that “mainly English or humanity majors[…] work there with little experience in the scientific field” (SP 17).  In fact, such responses that only non-science majors work in the Writing Center is a common misconception amongst science students, as many students indicated that they believe no, or very few, science majors work in the Writing Center.  On the other hand, a much smaller number of students indicated that they do know or have known a science major who worked in the Writing Center.  According to Writing Center records, eight of the 30 undergraduate students working in the Writing Center have volunteered to serve on the science team—a team of students that aims to help science majors with their papers.  These students are either majoring or minoring in the sciences, or have extensive scientific background knowledge, which enables them to carry on a conversation with students bringing assignments for their science classes to the Writing Center. 

The overall nature of the responses to the survey questions from biology students seems uncertain.  Many students indicated they are unsure whether a visit to the Writing Center would be beneficial, and several are also confused as to what they think ought to happen during a consultation, displaying a general misconception among students in the sciences about Writing Center work.

The Peer Consultant Perspective

As far as Peer Consultants are concerned, one consultant stated, “I feel like a student should walk out of the Writing Center feeling confident—that means I’ve done my job” (PC 14).  This response from the survey given to Peer Consultants and Writing Mentors in the Writing Center summarizes the main goal of the facility:  to help students on any aspect of the writing process with which they walk through the door.  However, doing so can often be a challenge as no two papers are ever the same, even if the papers are written for the same instructor’s assignment.  Therefore, having all consultants feel they have done their job and leaving students to walk out of the Writing Center feeling confident, as the above response puts it, often involves the consultant knowing how to handle papers that are not only diverse in the ability level of the writer, but also in terms of the various discipline-specific papers the Writing Center handles.

One recently proposed way of helping consultants in the Writing Center handle papers from outside a consultant's major has been to conduct a series of mini workshops designed to give students an idea of what to expect from various fields.  This suggestion was raised by a Peer Consultant in the Writing Center, and of the 20 students working in the Writing Center who completed surveys, 17 stated their agreement in desiring the Writing Center to prepare them in advance for working with papers in disciplines other than their own.  However, the suggestions of what types of advanced preparation consultants desire vary with some saying manuals would be helpful (PC 20), others stating demonstrations on how to approach papers from different disciplines would be valuable (PC 17), and still others believing workshops would be the most beneficial (PC 14).

Furthermore, survey responses from Peer Consultants seem to indicate working with papers from outside the disciplines they are familiar with can become problematic.  When asked how consultants respond to papers with scientific topics where their knowledge is limited, 15 of the 20 surveys indicate that the Peer Consultants tell the student that they are “not familiar with the topic, but[...] can critique [his or her] format” and other aspects of the paper (PC 13).  The 15 consultants who responded in this way indicated some variation of the above statement, often including that he or she asks if another consultant will aid in the consultation (PC 18), or if no one else is knowledgeable on the subject, reference materials are utilized (PC 20).  Although some responses to the survey indicate that students feel more comfortable working with papers from the humanities or social sciences, several survey responses indicate that the consultant reacts to papers from humanities or social science courses in the same way as they would science papers:  by asking questions about the content, explaining his or her level of familiarity with the subject matter, including other consultants in their discussion, and consulting manuals or reference guides. 

Interestingly, the survey responses from consultants in the Writing Center for the remainder of the survey questions are much more diverse than the other two groups of people surveyed.  Such results are not surprising, however, because the Writing Center employs students from across the academic majors and divisions found at Wilkes, and several students employed in the Writing Center have minors in fields outside of their major concentration.  Therefore, the group of employees currently working in the Writing Center has a diverse background of experience and abilities, which is certainly beneficial given the various writing expectations of the professors from different departments across campus.

Despite the range of background experience the Peer Consultants bring to the Writing Center, all students who work in the Writing Center do so with the common goal of demystifying the process of writing for those who come to the center.  Through the processes of consulting with others as well as utilizing manuals and reference guides, the Peer Consultants are not only aiding individual student writers, but are also helping themselves as they learn and expand their abilities in many genres of writing which will certainly enhance general writing knowledge.  Furthermore, Peer Consultants seem to agree that the Writing Center is a valuable place for student writers.  As one response puts it:

the Writing Center is beneficial for students of all majors even if it is just because they get another person’s perspective on their paper.  One rarely asks oneself[...] "Does this make sense?" so to have someone else read [the] paper with this question in mind can be eye-opening.  [...] the process of taking your paper to a different audience other than your professor is helpful for [science students] as well [as anyone else].  (PC 8)

This particular response echoes what several segments of the population at Wilkes seem to be indicating—that having others look at writing, beyond whether or not they can comment on the topic itself—is a beneficial and invaluable tool to have at one’s disposal.  In fact, this response raises the point that students often do not ask themselves if what they are writing makes sense, which is an important component of the writing process.  As the above consultant points out, having another set of eyes looking at the paper, regardless of whether or not that person can discuss the subject of the paper, is still a worthwhile experience.

The Biology Professor Perspective

A short article published on the first page of Nature in 2001 explains that learning to write and speak about science at the doctoral level is too late in the education process for such knowledge, and that instead, students should be learning to write and speak in their field on the undergraduate level (“Learning to speak and write”).  In fact, online science journals with articles written by undergraduates for other undergraduates are beginning to crop up for this purpose (Chen 13).  Perhaps it could be said that professors in all fields feel the way the author of the Nature article does—that writing ought to be learned at the undergraduate level in order to produce prospective professionals with the ability to communicate effectively.  Wilkes professors in biology certainly seem to agree, one by stating:

Some students seem to think that because they are science majors they don’t need to be as good at writing as their "English major friends."  I would vehemently disagree with this idea.  People of all disciplines need to be able to communicate effectively. (SP 6)

This professor further suggests that “any resource that can help students improve their writing skills is potentially beneficial” (SP 6), and it seems this professor feels adamant that students in biology need to learn effective writing and communication skills to the same ability level as their peers in the humanities.  Another professor makes a similar comment regarding students’ absolute need to know how to write in the sciences just like any other field by stating, “[m]any students come to college without proper writing skills.  The assistants at the W[riting] C[enter] can help science students learn [or] improve on proper writing skills, which, of course, will help improve the overall grade on their writing assignments” (SP 2).  This professor seems to be suggesting that not only will a higher grade on an assignment be the result of a visit to the Writing Center, but also that students can improve upon their writing skills, which will benefit each individual beyond the level of the undergraduate degree.

Although the sample size of professor responses to the questionnaire is smaller than the other two categories of responses, the answers given to the questions speak volumes.  Of the seven professor responses obtained, six indicated that they have not required students to bring a writing assignment to the Writing Center, and the one professor who has required this action stated that he or she did so “about 10-15 years ago” (SP 4).  Although professors do not require a visit to the Writing Center, some indicate that they have recommended a visit, or will do so now that they have been reminded of the availability of the Writing Center as a potential tool for writing improvement for students (SP 2, SP 1).  In fact, after being alerted of the potential benefit of a visit to the Writing Center, one science professor informed me that after completing my questionnaire, he recommended that students in one of his classes visit the Writing Center.

By far, the most resounding answer to the questionnaires is that instructors in biology desire more information for themselves and their students as to what the Writing Center can do for them.  One professor asked, “Is the Writing Center still open?” (SP 4), while another indicated that he or she “didn’t know about it” (SP 1), and others think that the Writing Center could “be of value for students who need a lot of help in grammar and sentence construction” (SP 5).  Although the Writing Center can certainly provide the help the latter professor is looking for, the center is also capable of more than just checking for grammar and mechanics, but it seems that the professors, just like the Peer Consultants working with science papers, are unsure of what the person on the other end is looking for in terms of writing assistance.  One response to the questionnaire seems to provide the answer to the conundrum:  “We need more information about the W[riting] C[enter]” (SP 3).

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 done incorrectly 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.

Works Cited

Chen, Josette.  “The Youth Team.”  Nature.  411.6833 (2001): 13.  EBSCOhost.  Academic Search Premier.  Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 18 March 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com>.

Felzien, Lisa and Janet Cooper.  “Modeling the Research Process:  Alternative Approaches to Teaching Undergraduates.”  Journal of College Science Teaching.  34.6 (2005):  42-46.

Gladstein, Jill.  “Conducting Research in the Gray Space:  How Writing Associates Negotiate      Between WAC and WID in an Introductory Biology Course.”  Across the Disciplines. 5.1 (2008).  25 April 2008.  <http://www.wac.colstate.edu/atd/fellows/gladstein.cfm>.

Hebert-Leiter, Maria.  “Re:  Untitled.”  E-mail to the author.  27 March 2009.

Hubbuch, Susan M.  “A Tutor Needs to Know the Subject Matter to Help a Student with a Paper: Agree, Disagree, Not Sure.”  The Writing Center Journal 33.2 (2003):  32-35.

Jerde, Christopher L. and Mark L. Taper.  “Preparing Undergraduates for Professional Writing.” Journal of College Science Teaching 33.7 (2004):  34-37.

Kiedaisch, Jean, and Sue Dinitz.  “‘Look Back and Say ‘So What’:  The Limitations of the Generalist Tutor.”  The Writing Center Journal.  14.1 (1993):  63-74.  “Learning to Speak and Write.”  Nature.  411.6833 (2001):  1.  EBSCOhost.  Academic Search Premier.  Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 18 March 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com>.

Lettner-Rust, Heather G., Pamela J. Tracy, Susan L. Booker, Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger, and   Jena B. Burges (2007).  “Writing Beyond the Curriculum:  Transition, Transfer, and Transformation.”  Across the Disciplines 4 (2007). <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/lettnerrustetal2007.cfm>.

McLeod, Susan, and Elaine Maimon.  “Clearing the Air: WAC Myths and Realities.”  NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.  62.5 (2000):  573-583.  5 March 2009< <http://www.jstor.org/stable/378962>.

Murray, Donald.  “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.”  Cross-Talk in Comp Theory:  A Reader.  Ed. Victor Villanueva.  2nd ed.  Illinois:  National Council of Teachers of English, 2003.  3-6.

Nowacek, Rebecca S.  “Why Is Being Interdisciplinary So Very Hard to Do?  Thoughts on the Perils and Promise of Interdisciplinary Pedagogy.”  College Composition and Communication.  60.3 (2009):  493-516.

Russell, David R.  “Writing To Learn To Do:  WAC, WAW, WAW—Wow!”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines.  2.2 (1997):  3-8.  10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v2n2/russell.pdf>.

Severino, Carol and Mary Trachsel.  “Theories of Specialized Discourses and Writing Fellows Programs.”  Across the Disciplines.  5.1 (2008).  25 April 2008. <http://www.wac.colstate.edu/fellows/severino.cfm>.

Sommers, Nancy.  “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory:  A Reader.  Ed. Victor Villanueva.  2nd ed.  Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003.  43-54.

Stanley, William Chad.  “A Writing Center Overview:  March 2009.”  

Stanley, William Chad.  “Writing Center Consultation Log and Evaluations Record, 2004-2008.” E-mail to the author.  5 May 2008.

Steele, Michael and Kenneth Pidcock.  “Biology Department Submission for Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC)”  “Re:  Capstone WAC Question.”  E-mail to the author. 30 March 2009.

Stockton, Sharon.  “Students and Professionals Writing Biology:  Disciplinary Work and Apprentice Storytellers.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines.  1.2 (1994): 79-104.  10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v1n2/stockton.pdf>.

Wilkes University.  2009.  Fast Facts.  28 Sept. 2009 <http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/141/asp>.

Works Consulted

Arzt, J., Barnett, Kristine E., and Scoppetta, Jessyka (2009).  “Online Tutoring:  A Symbiotic Relationship with Writing Across the Curriculum Initiatives.”  [Special Issue on Writing Technologies and Writing Across the Curriculum] Across the Disciplines 6 (2009). 27 Feb. 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/technologies/arztetal.cfm>.

Barnett, Robert W. and Jacob S. Blumner, eds.  The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice.  Boston:  Allan and Bacon, 2001.

Bayer, T., Curton, Karen, and Kriley, Charity (2005).  “Acquiring Expertise in Discipline Specific Discourse:  An Interdisciplinary Exercise in Learning to Speak Biology.”  Across the Disciplines 2 (2005).  27 Feb. 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/bayer_curto_kriley2005.cfm>.

Ben-David Kolikant, Yifat, David W. Gatchell, Penny L. Hirsch, and Robert A. Linsenmeier.      “A Cognitive-Apprenticeship-Inspired Instructional Approach for Teaching Scientific Writing and Reading.”  Journal of College Science Teaching 36.3 (2006):  20-25.

Bishop, Wendy, ed.  The Subject Is Writing:  Essays by Teachers and Students.  2nd ed.    Portsmouth:  Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1999.

Brammer, C., Amare, Nicole, and Campbell, Kim Sydow (2008).  “Culture Shock: Teaching Writing within Interdisciplinary Contact Zones.”  Across the Disciplines 5 (2008). <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/brammeretal2008.cfm>.

Briggs, Lynn Craigue, and Meg Woolbright, eds. Stories from the Center:  Connecting Narrative and Theory in the Writing Center.  Urbana:  National Council of Teachers of English, 2000.

Carpenter, J. H., and Krest, Margie.  “It's About the Science:  Students Writing and Thinking About Data in a Scientific Writing Course.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 5.2 (2001).  <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v5n2/carpenter_krest.pdf>.

Carson, Jay, William Sipple, Mike Yahr, Thomas Marshall, and John O’Banion.  “A New Heuristic for Planning WAC Programs:  Ensuring Successful Collaboration from all Stakeholders.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.3 (2000). <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v3n3/carson.pdf>.

Childers, Pamela B.  "Faculty Development and WAC/CAC at Secondary Schools."  Academic Writing 1 (2000).  15 April 2009.  <http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/secondary/column2.htm>. 

Childers, Pamela B.  "Introductory Column:  Secondary School CAC/WAC and Writing Centers."  Academic Writing 1 (2000).  15 April 2009. <http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/secondary/column2.htm>.

Coles, William E. Jr.  The Plural I—and After.  1978.  Portsmouth:  Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1988.

Coles, William E. Jr.  “Writing across the Curriculum:  Why Bother?”  Rhetoric Society Quarterly 21.4 (1991):  17-25.  JSTOR.  Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 27 Feb 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885623>.

Connor, Ulla and Anna Mauranen.  “Linguistic Analysis of Grant Proposals:  European Union Research Grants.”  English for Specific Purposes 18 (1999):  47-62.

Cross, Geoffrey A., and Katherine V. Wills.  “Bridging Disciplinary Divides in Writing Across the Curriculum.”  Across the Disciplines.  2 (2005).  27 Feb. 2009. <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/cross_wills2005/index.cfm>.

DeLuca, Geraldine, Len Fox, Mark-Ameen Johnson, and Myra Kogen, eds. Dialogue on Writing:  Rethinking ESL, Basic Writing, and First Year Composition.  Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2002. “Faculty Collaboration on Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Assignments:  Linking Teaching and Scholarship.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 4.1 (2000): 67-70. <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v4n1/washburn.pdf>.

Francek, Mark.  “Promoting Discussion in the Science Classroom Using Gallery Walks.” Journal of College Science Teaching 36.1 (2006):  27-31.

Fulwiler, Toby.  “Writing in Biology: A Seminar.”  College Composition and Communication 30.3 (1979): 308-310.  Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/356407>. Gere, Anne Ruggles, ed.  Into the Field:  Sites of Composition Studies.  New York:  The Modern   Language Association of America, 1993.

Harkin, Patricia, and John Schilb, eds.  Contending with Words:  Composition and Rhetoric in a   Postmodern Age.  New York:  The Modern Language Association of America, 1991.

Hedly, Jane and Jo Ellen Parker.  “Writing across the Curriculum:  The Vantage of the Liberal Arts.”  ADE Bulletin 98 (1991):  22-28. <http://web2.ade.org/ade/bulletin/N098/098022.htm>.

Hyland, Ken.  “Talking to the Academy:  Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Written Communication 13.2 (1996):  251-281.

Johanek, Cindy.  Composing Research:  A Contextualist Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition.  Logan:  Utah State University Press, 2000.

Kiefer, Kate and Aaron Leff.  “Client-based Writing About Science:  Immersing Students in Real Writing Contexts.”  Across the Disciplines 5 (2008). <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articules/kiefer_leff2008.cfm>.

Kinkead, Joyce A., and Jeanette G. Harris.  Writing Centers in Context:  Twelve Case Studies. Illinois:  National Council of Teachers of English, 1993.

Kuldell, Natalie. “Read Like a Scientist to Write Like a Scientist.”  Journal of College Science Teaching 8.2 (2003):  23-30. 

McCullough, Laura.  “‘Science News’ and the Science Classroom.”  Journal of College Science Teaching 36.3 (2006):  30-33.

McDonald, James, and Lynn Dominguez.  “Moving From Content Knowledge to Engagement.”  Journal of College Science Teaching 35.3 (2005): 18-22.

Melzer, Dan.  “Assignments Across the Curriculum:  A Survey of College Writing.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 6.1 (2003):  86-110. <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v6n1/melzer.pdf>.

Moskovits, Cary and David Kellogg.  “Primary Science Communication in the First-Year Writing Course.”National Council of Teachers of English 57.2 (2005):  307-334.

Mullin, Joan, Susan Schorn, Tim Turner, Hertz Rachel, Davidson Derek, and Baca Amanda “Challenging Our Practices, Supporting Our Theories:  Writing Mentors As Change Agents Across Discourse Communities.”  Across the Disciplines.  5.1 (2008).  25 April 2008. <http://www.wac.colstate.edu/fellows/mullin.cfm>.

Norgaard, W. (1999).  “Negotiating Expertise in Disciplinary ‘Contact Zones.’” [Special Issue – Communications Across the Engineering Curriculum] Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999):  44-63. <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v3n2/norgaard.pdf>.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition:  Portrait of an Emerging Field. Portsmouth:  Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1987.

Ochsner, R. and J. Fowler (2004).  “Playing Devil's Advocate: Evaluating the Literature of the WAC/WID Movement.”  Review of Educational Research 74(2):  117-140.  JSTOR. Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516053>.

Odell, Lee, and Burt Swersey.  “Reinventing Invention:  Writing across the Curriculum without WAC.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 6.3 (2003):  38-53 10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v6n3/odell.pdf>.

Parks, Steve and Eli Goldblatt.  “Writing beyond the Curriculum:  Fostering New Collaborations in Literacy.” College English 62.5 (2000):  584-606. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/378963>.

Patton, Martha D., Aaron Krawitz, Kay Libbus, Mark Ryan, and Martha A. Townsend   “Dealing with Resistance to WAC in the Natural and Applied Sciences.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.1 (1998):  64-76. 10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v3n1/patton.pdf>.

Reiss, Donna.  “A Comment on "The Future of WAC.”  College English 58.6 (1996):  722-723. JSTOR. Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 10 March 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/378399>.

Russell, David R.  Writing in the Academic Disciplines:  A Curricular History.  1991.  2nd ed.     Carbondale:  Southern Illinois University Press, 2002.

Samraj, Betty, John M. Swales.  “Writing in Conservation Biology:  Searching for an Interdisciplinary Rhetoric?”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.3 (2000): 36-56. 10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v3n3/samraj.pdf>.

Samuels, Robert.  “Re-inventing the Modern University with WAC:  Postmodern Composition as Cultural and Intellectual History.”  Across the Disciplines 1 (2004).  27 Feb. 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/samuels2004.cfm>.

Shahn, Ezra, and Robert K. Costello.  “Evidence and Interpretation:  Teachers' Reflections on Reading Writing in an Introductory Science Course.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 4.2 (2000):  47-82. 10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v4n2/shahn_costello.pdf>.

Smith, Louise Z.  “Why English Departments Should ‘House’ Writing across the Curriculum.” College English 50.4 (1988):  390-395.  JSTOR.  Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 10 March 2009 <http://jstor.org>.

Spigelman, Candace, and Laurie Grobman, eds.  On Location:  Theory and Practice in Classroom-Based Writing Tutoring.  Logan:  Utah State University Press, 2005.

Sticker, Leeann.  “The Mock Experiment:  Introducing Students to the Scientific Research.” Journal of College Science Teaching 31.5 (2002):  308-311.

Stoller, Fredricka, L., James K. Jones, Molly S. Costanza-Robinson, and Marin S. Robinson          “Demystifying Disciplinary Writing:  A Case Study in the Writing of Chemistry.” [Special Issue:  The Linguistically-Diverse Student:  Challenges and Possibilities Across the Curriculum]  Across the Disciplines 2 (2005).  27 Feb. 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/lds/stoller.cfm>.

Walker, Kristin.  “The Debate over Generalist and Specialist Tutors:  Genre Theory’s Contribution.”  The Writing Center Journal 18.2 (1998):  27-45.

Waldo, Mark L.  “Inquiry as a Non-Invasive Approach to Cross-Curricular Writing Consultancy.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 1.3 (1996):  6-22. 10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v1n3/waldo.pdf>.

Walvoord, Barbara E.  “The Future of WAC.”  College English 58.1 (1996):  58-79.  Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 10 March 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/378534>.

Weidman, Nadine.  “Gender Issues in Biology:  An Approach to Teaching Writing.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 2.3 (1998):  61-68.  10 March 2009 <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v2n3/weidman.pdf>.

Young, Art.  “The Wonder of Writing Across the Curriculum.”  Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 1.1 (1994):  58-71. <http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v1n1/young.pdf>.

Young, Art.  “Writing across and against the Curriculum.”  College Composition and Communication 54.3 (2003):  472-485. Wilkes U, Wilkes-Barre, Farley Lib. 10 March 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594174>.

Zawack, T. M. (2008).  “Writing Fellows as WAC Change Agents:  Changing What?  Changing Whom?  Changing How?”  [Special Issue on Writing Fellows] Across the Disciplines 5 (2008).  30 April 2008 <http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/zawacki.cfm>.

Sample Surveys

Questions for Science Majors:
Year (sophomore, junior, etc.):
Academic Major:
Do you work in the Writing Center?:

Have you ever brought papers assigned for your science classes to the Writing Center?  If your answer is “yes,” please describe why you did so.  If you answered “no,” what is it that discouraged you from seeking help with your paper at the Writing Center?

If you answered “yes” above for papers from science classes, was the visit useful or beneficial to you?  If not, what might have made the visit more beneficial?

If you sit down for a consultation in the Writing Center, what sort of help do you think you will get?  Please be very specific in describing what you think ought to happen during a consultation.

Do you feel the Writing Center is able to assist you with papers assigned for your science courses?  Why or why not?

What types of additions and/or improvements to the Writing Center, if any, would help you with papers for your science classes? 

What value or benefits, if any, do you think the Writing Center has for students in the sciences?

Questions for PCs:
Year (sophomore, junior, etc.):
Academic Major:

If you are working with a student who is writing a paper for a science course, and the topic is one about which you know little or nothing, how do you respond?

If you are working with a student who is writing a paper for a course in the humanities or social sciences about which you know little or nothing, how do you respond?  

Do you wish the Writing Center would prepare you in advance to work with papers in disciplines other than your own (i.e. tutorials, manuals, etc.)?  If yes, what type of preparation or training would be beneficial?

When you sit down for a consultation in the Writing Center, what sort of help do you think it is your responsibility to provide?  Please be very specific in describing what you think ought to happen during a consultation.

What value or benefits, if any, do you think the Writing Center has for students in the sciences?

 Questions for Science Professors:
Have you ever required your students to bring a writing assignment to the Writing Center?

• Yes

• No

If you have required students to take their writing projects to the Writing Center, please describe the value you seek for your students in such a visit.

If you do not require students to take their writing projects to the Writing Center, what are the reasons behind that decision?

If you were to recommend, rather than require, that your students take their writing projects to the Writing Center for consultation, for what reasons would you recommend such a visit (e.g. to seek help with grammatical errors, work on formatting, etc.)?

If you recommend or require a student to go to the Writing Center for a consultation, or even if you do not recommend or require this action, what sort of help do you expect the student to receive?  Please be very specific in describing what you think ought to happen during a consultation.

What value or benefits, if any, do you think the WC has for students in the sciences?