Rebecca Howard
WRT
205
2/18/03
In order to learn about the history of the writing requirement at Syracuse University we have conducted several interviews, consulted course catalogues, and read various documents published by the university. This report contains, a brief history of the different writing requirements and changes that have occurred in the writing department, summaries and discussions of interviews with: Louise Phelps, the founder of the writing program at Syracuse, Stewart Thau, an associate dean in the college of Arts and Sciences, and a philosophy professor, Chuck Watson, a writing professor who has taught at Syracuse since 1970, and Margaret Himley who is an associate professor in the writing department. There are also summaries of articles that were gathered from the Syracuse University Writing DepartmentÕs home web page. These articles are: ÒSynergies: The Undergraduate OdysseyÓ, ÒSynergies: The Writing Program as an All-University ResourceÓ, ÒThe Writing Program at Syracuse: an OverviewÓ, and Louise PhelpsÕ article,Ó Making Writing Visible at SyracuseÓ. The conclusion provides final thoughts as to whether or not, based on the information explained, Writing 205 should still be required.
All of the people who were interviewed, as well as
several of the articles provided information about the history of writing
requirements and the writing department at Syracuse University. This section is
a compilation of the historical information that these sources supplied.
Syracuse
UniversityÕs writing requirement began in the 1960s. Stewart Thau was working
at Syracuse at this time and recalls that the writing program was titled the
Freshman English program. He describes the program as basically a one-person
faculty with lots of TAÕs: more of an English literature course, with some
writing, but with a main focus on composition. Chuck Watson stated that at this
time freshman were required to take a writing sequence, known as freshman
composition. The curriculum for
this course was replaced in the early 1970s by a program geared more toward
composition and essay writing. The
program was again modified in the mid 1980s, as composition was becoming an
independent field of English, making Syracuse UniversityÕs program outdated.
Stewart Thau commented that in the 1980s there was a growing field for writing
and composition rhetoric instructors, and this is why a new program was
adopted.
Margaret Himley, who came to Syracuse in 1983 when the writing requirement was still titled Freshman Composition, recalled that major changes came about after the forming of the Gates Committee. She reported that the Gates Committee was composed of cross college faculty and headed by Michael Fluche, who at the time was associate vice chancellor of academic affairs, James Slayvin and Donald McClaid represented the Writing Program Administrators (WPA) and helped to evaluate the system. After analysis of the writing program the group was appalled and called for immediate change. In 1986 Louise Phelps was hired as an independent writing director. After the Gates CommitteeÕs report experts from the writing program helped teachers to construct four courses that they labeled Òwriting studiosÓ. The goals of these studios were to, Òaddress the needs and interests of students in different fields and at different stages of their education.Ó (ÒThe Writing Program at Syracuse: An OverviewÓ p.1) It was not until 1987 that a new program was officially adopted. The program was one of the first of its kind because it offered an Òinquiry based curriculumÓ that encouraged students to, learn to write effectively as students and professionals and helped them with their reading as well as their writing skills. (ÒThe Writing Program at Syracuse: An OverviewÓ)
In 1986 Syracuse University hired Louise Phelps as the first director of the writing program. Margaret Himley recalls that there was a collaborative effort to come up with the curriculum. It was decided that there would be four classes, one each year, with progressive focuses. They wanted students to start learning the basics, then learn more detail and apply it to their discipline. There was also a ÒcapstoneÓ course.
Watson recalls that the program taught students about writing without simply reading literature, as well as how to focus on thinking critically about oneÕs own writing through research. It helped students to become more sophisticated writers in regards to audience and perspective. Eventually it was decided that the program would better suit students if the classes were taken in the first and fourth semester rather than the first and second. This break in the sequence allows students to advance their general skills and knowledge from freshman to sophomore year, allowing WRT 205 to be geared toward a more advanced group of students.
Louise Phelps explained that each school and college sets their own requirements. Decisions go up for votes at the senate, which is composed of students, faculty, and staff. If the senate of each college votes to adopt the liberal arts core, they get the standard writing requirement. Currently, small changes are made to the writing requirement every four to six years as new directors are hired.
Summary and Discussion
This section includes
segments from interviews with Louise Phelps, Stewart Thau, Chuck Watson, and
Margaret Himley, as well as summaries of the articles that are listed in the
introduction. While these sources did provide us with some historical
information those facts are listed in the History section of this report and
the following is a summary of additional information that each source provided
us with.
This
is a segment of an interview with Louse Phelps, the founder of the writing
program at Syracuse University. This section conveys PhelpsÕ response to those
who do not want to adopt the writing requirement and to those who want to
eliminate it.
Louise Phelps reported that most people on campus understand the need for writing, but try to make suggestions as to what their students are being taught specifically. She recalled that there are groups who want to abolish the writing requirement because they feel that students who do not want to learn cannot be taught. She reported that many opponents to the program want to make writing an elective so that they can weed out the people who will get in the way of serious writing. However, as Phelps stated, they are not getting very far in their argument.
Source
2: Interview with Stewart Thau
This
section is an excerpt from an interview with Stewart Thau where he discussed
NewhouseÕs opposition to the writing requirement and their refusal to adopt it.
This section also includes what Thau believes are the strengths and significance
of the writing requirement. Many of his views can be lumped into what he calls,
Òcitizen writingÓ. The meaning of
this term and his comments are included in this section.
Stewart Thau explained that the faculty of the individual colleges at Syracuse University set their own curriculum, and Newhouse decided not to follow the College of Arts & Sciences in its revolution of the writing program. He stated that, all other schools followed Arts & Sciences, but Newhouse prides themselves heavily on their own specialized form of writing that they teach, and stubbornly made the mistake of not following Arts & Sciences. Accrediting agencies still want specialized schools such as Newhouse to have a diverse, liberal background education, and Newhouse still follows most of the liberal arts core of Arts & Sciences.
Thau explained that while most courses have general curriculum guidelines, the writing program perhaps has less. There is a general description/tone the program models itself after. Some feel thereÕs not enough commonality among the writing sections, however, writing instructors are all trained in the same methods for teaching the course.
Thau believes that the required Writing 105/205 sequence teaches, Òcitizen writing,Ó for writing as a citizen in all different walks of life. Be it editorials, legal writing, or specialized writing, the writing program at Syracuse increases everyoneÕs capacity to communicate in all fields, and everyone can benefit from general/liberal knowledge. Thau believes that overall the program is effective. He compared the program to perhaps a more selective school such as Cornell, which may expect its students to already have received sufficient writing instruction; Syracuse accepts a wider range of students with varying writing skills and background, which is why the required writing program is so beneficial. There are students with strong writing backgrounds who may not benefit as greatly from the required sequence, but for the average student it is very helpful.
Source
3: Interview with Chuck Watson
Chuck Watson has observed three different writing programs since his arrival at Syracuse University in 1970. This section includes WatsonÕs comments on the opposition to the writing program since it became separate from the English department and why he feels writing classes are and should be required.
Watson reports that there was a lot of skepticism toward making writing a separate field from English. The traditionalist thinking was that writing has been taught for years, people know how to teach it, and the focus should remain on correctness and grammar. As Stewart Thau also stated in his interview, Dean Reuben and his Newhouse College provided some of the most vocal opposition, and was the only college not to join the new writing program after it was adopted in the mid Ô80s, creating on-going tension. Newhouse reasoned it was a school that taught writing and knew how to do it, and because of its prestige had credibility to say so.
While Watson has lost touch with curriculum specifics of the writing program over the last few years, there are some general guidelines that he reports are usually followed: Literacy narratives, retrospective accounts of oneÕs own writing, ethnographies, and anthropological projects. In the past the writing program has had a basic curriculum with some leeway, but over the years has become a more instructor based course with much more leeway.
Watson stated that classes from the writing program are required because of the important and necessary skills they teach. The faculty of each individual college at Syracuse decides on what is to be required. Watson stated that this helps to make students Òmentally agile or adaptable,Ó giving them the ability to use language for different occasions and audiences. It allows you to see different perspectives, in your own writing and in othersÕ. It provides vital skills for using language and communicating in all different colleges and professions.
Overall, Watson has stayed close in touch with the writing program and feels it is very important. No matter how good a writer you may be, there is always room for improvement at your own level, and the writing program allows for exploration of your own personal writing skills and style.
Source
4: Interview with Margaret Himley
Margaret
Himley came to Syracuse University in 1983. This section, taken from an
interview with her, conveys her opinion on the writing requirement at SU.
Himley believes that required writing studios are both good and bad. She feels that they are good because they expose students to world, "globalization". She also feels that writing is interdisciplinary and gets students learning and applying writing to their individual needs. She states that the bad part of the writing program is that it waits too long to get studentsÕ eyes open. Himley, like Louise Phelps, feels that faculty, campus wide; believe that students need to know how to write and that as long as someone is teaching them to do this everything is fine.
Source
5: ÒSynergies: The Undergraduate ÔOdysseyÕÓ
This
article, which is accessible through the Syracuse University Writing
DepartmentÕs home web page, offers the writing departmentÕs opinion on writing
classes. It specifically discusses
how the classes bring about interdisciplinary study. The article also provides
insight into what goals the writing department has for the future.
This article, also titled
Concept Paper 4, begins by discussing that there is not a link between the
different subjects that Syracuse students study. The writing department states that required writing studios
give students the skills they need to link together curriculum from other
classes by learning how to effectively write about them. The article states that the writing
classes are strategically placed at various points during studentsÕ
undergraduate education so that there is a, ÒÉcorrelation with other academic
experiencesÓ (p.1). The classes that students take help them to be more
effective readers, writers and ÒcriticalÓ thinkers. The article asserts that students simultaneously apply these
skills to their other classes. The article also discuses three projects that
the writing program hopes to instate. The first is that they want to create
portfolios that students keep with them. The portfolios will consist of
studentsÕ academic work as well as comments that instructors have made. Their
second idea is to offer more ÒconcentratedÓ writing classes to build upon the
knowledge students get in the already required ones or to offer classes that
are more advanced than writing 205 for students who have already learned those
skills. If this goal was met than all students would be able to grow as
writers, not just the average ones, who as Thau pointed out are the ones who
currently benefit the most from the current writing requirement. Their third goal is titled Odyssey.
This is a research-based idea that allows students to work with professors and
publish their own work.
Source
6: ÒSynergies: The Writing Program as an All-University ResourceÓ
This
is a response to some of the criticism that the writing department receives in
regards to their requirements.
This article, also titled Concept Paper Three, discusses the benefits of the writing program and how it will help all students throughout the University. It discusses the sentiment on campus to eliminate the writing requirement and replace it with instruction geared to teach writing for each individual department. However, the article lists reasons why this is not a good idea. For example, it states that required writing classes provide students with a common experience, and exposes them to various types of writing that they will need to know how to do. The article closes by stating that the program would be more effective if it was given more support.
Source
7: ÒThe Writing Program at Syracuse: An OverviewÓ
The
information obtained from this article is included in the history section of
this report. The location that it can be found at is included in the work cited
section.
The fact that this article was written around the time that the current writing 205 class became a requirement allows readers to learn more about the initial intentions and goals of the class. The article states that the required classes were set up to be like ÒstudiosÓ. This allows students to critique each otherÕs work and learn from one another in a Òworkshop settingÓ. The article goes on to state that the wiring department wants to develop Ònon traditionalÓ means of teachings that involve, tutoring, co- teaching, and more technological instruction.
The article discusses the various ways that the new studio setting will help students to become better writers. For example, students learn to critically analyze because they are asked to reflect on topics in depth. One of the fundamental goals of the required writing classes are to ÒÉhelp all kinds of people at the University become more skillful, flexible, and reflective writers and to use writing across the richest possible spectrum of functions and contextsÓ (Phelps p.2). Phelps reports that another goal of the writing department is to keep altering the curriculum and to keep offering new classes until all studentsÕ needs are met.
Phelps ends the article by stating that, ÒThe Writing Program is only the catalyst of a collaborative project for faculty members and students to make writing visible and powerful for those who write and learn at the UniversityÓ (Phelps, p.3).
Many of the sources we consulted provided us with similar information. The interviews provide us with four different opinions from people who are actively involved, or who at some point have been actively involved, in making decisions that affect the writing program. They also allowed us to see the motivation behind changes in the writing requirement. The articles that we consulted supply not only information about past and current writing requirements but also give insight as to what the future of the writing program is.
Each of us has a different major. After analysis of the sources we have determined that writing should be required for each of our majors. Suzie is an English major. The skills that writing 205 teaches will not only be necessary for her to have when writing essays in college for her major but also when she is teaching other people to write. Future research on the topic could include more information from those who oppose the writing curriculum and perhaps more detail about past and current curriculum. Kelly is a Theater Design major and believes that writing 205 is a very valuable experience. It not only gives her skills to complete her education, it also creates an individual ready to make informed decisions about the rest of her life. Scott is undecided but considering psychology. Writing 205 will give him the skills to effectively communicate his ideas through his writing.
Works Cited
Scott Rosenberg Chuck
Watson; 239 HBC; Fri 2/7 1-1:30
Stewart Thau; 329 HL; Mon 2/10 1:15-1:45
Interview Questions