To develop an insider's perspective as to what teachers employ in their efforts to translate instructional theory into occasions for learning, this study represents teachers' perspectives in a way that ( 1 ) identifies some of the legitimate and unexpected resistance to implementing new curriculum, and (2) suggests an analytic model of theoretical and practical value to those interested in curriculum implementation. Two high school teachers collaborated with the researcher to develop writing tasks that would encourage careful thought and learning on the part of the students. Both teachers were observed before and during the time they developed and implemented these writing tasks. On the basis of the field notes and interview transcripts, an analytic model was developed and used to: 1. characterize a single meaning system here defined as a curricular system of meaning; and 2. identify several natural sources of resistance to innovation. The discussion focuses specifically on two components of this meaning system: (a) locus of attention here defined as a critical point of balance in the system which enables the teacher to negotiate a number of delicately balanced and sometimes conflicting concerns, and (b) of instruction, defined as the underlying conditions that influence instructional practice. These conditions include the teacher's conceptions about the source of knowledge, the development of knowledge, and the goals of instruction. Evidence cited suggests that these two concerns are crucial to the effective and efficient working of a system, and that both are thus natural sources of resistance. A number of factors have contributed to the recent interest in writing across the curriculum. Among them is our developing understanding of the relationship between writing and thinking. Work by Emig (1977, 1983), Martin (1976), Hays, Roth, Ramsey, and Foulke (1983) and others indicates that the process of writing affords the writer a special opportunity for thinking and thus for learning. Building on the work of Vygotsky (1962), Luria (1971), and Bruner (1971), Emig (1983) argues that both the act and the product of writing are marked by a number of features which, in her words, correspond uniquely to certain powerful learning strategies (p. 123). In the The research reported here was supported by grant number NIE-G-82-0027 from the National Institute of Education. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the funding agency. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 20, No. 1, February 1986 69 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.162 on Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:40:25 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 70 Research in the Teaching of English process of using hand, eye, and brain, the writer may, among other things, sort through ideas, integrate old information with new, and reformulate thoughts. Fostering such processes is especially important since they have been identified as critical intellectual components of more complex forms of

Preview this article: Programs for Writing Across the Curriculum: A Report, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/36/4/collegecompositionandcommunication11738-1.gif

H. F. Dowling, Jr., Towson State University's Approach to Improving Writing across the Curriculum, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 36, No. 2, Writing in the Academic and Professional Disciplines: Bibliography Theory Practice Preparation of Faculty (May, 1985), pp. 240-242

Preview this article: Dialogues Among Disciplines: A Plan for Faculty Discussions of Writing Across the Curriculum, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/36/2/collegecompositioncommunication11768-1.gif

Preview this article: How Well Does Writing Across the Curriculum Work?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/46/2/collegeenglish13382-1.gif

A tremendous amount of energy goes into the contracting, developing, marketing, and revising of composition textbooks. And a significant amount of energy goes into criticizing them.2 More than we critics would like to admit, editors-good editors anyway-try to respond to this criticism. Thus we are seeing a new generation of textbooks that incorporate current work in rhetoric, psychoand sociolinguistics, the composing process, and writing across the curriculum. But the surprising thing is that such innovation goes on in the absence of fundamental research into what happens when students read current or traditional textbooks. True, some authors conduct field tests, but, for reasons that I hope will become clear in this essay, field testing provides limited answers to basic questions. We need more basic research than we now have into the interaction of reader and text when the text is one intended to teach a complex process. Without such research, we will never know whether or not our improvements--our attempts to revise and revitalize textbooks-are really contributing to growth in composing. But is such research really necessary, or would it simply be a desirable but ultimately academic exercise? Won't textbooks continue to become more effective as our knowledge about composing increases? Not necessarily, for we have good reason to suspect that knowledge of any complex process-like knowledge about composing-cannot be adequately conveyed via static print. As soon as such knowledge hits the page of a text, its rich possibilities are narrowed and sometimes rigidified. While I certainly don't want to suggest that no student learns from composition textbooks, I do want to raise the possibility that students learn about the process of writing from a textbook less frequently and less effectively than many of us think. To argue the legitimacy of the foregoing assertion, I'll begin with general speculation on the value of textbook discussions of writing and move toward more specific consideration of problem-solving in the act of composing. Though I will state

Preview this article: Writing to Learn: Writing Across the Disciplines, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/43/4/collegeenglish13801-1.gif