• Contact

    Xchanges: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Technical Communication, Rhetoric, and Writing Across the Curriculum.
  • Home
  • Archives
  • About
  • Staff
  • Resources
  • Submissions
  • CFP
  • Contact

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

Contents

Introduction

The Act of Writing

Writing as a Process

The Wilkes University Writing Center 

The Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum

WAC Initiatives in the Departments

Generalists or Specialists and the Gray Space

Case Study: Survey Responses From Across the Curriculum

The Biology Student Perspective

The Peer Consultant Perspective

The Biology Professor Perspective

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

Works Cited

Works Consulted

Sample Surveys

About the Author

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.).

Pages: 1· 2· 3· 4· 5· 6· 7· 8· 9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16

Posted by xcheditor on May 19, 2021 in article, Issue 6.1

Related posts

  • Welcome to Issue 6.1 of Xchanges!
  • "Rhetorical Analysis of a Corporate Website: Philip Morris, Ethos, and Ethics"
  • "Pedagogy Shaped by Ideology: Beneath or Beyond Plato"
  • "Excuse My Excess"
  • "Analysis of Web Content Delivered to a Mobile Computing Environment"
  • "The Benefits of Using Web Content Management Systems"
  • "Socialization of the New Hire in the Workplace"
  • "Typeface and Document Persona in Magazines"

© by Xchanges • ISSN: 1558-6456 • Powered by B2Evolution

Cookies are required to enable core site functionality.