Writing in an integrated curriculum: Challenges and changes

Previous literature on Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) acknowledges funding constraints and conflicting values as contributors to the failings of WAC programs, even well-established ones (Young & Fulwiler, 1990). But beyond these conflicts over funding and values, my case study of a WAC pilot at Texas A&M University suggests that pervasive negative attitudes may enter into interdisciplinary interactions, becoming subtle, underlying reasons why English is not more successfully integrated.;To illuminate the distinctive characteristics of the Foundation Coalition pilot at Texas A&M, I describe the characteristics of the pilot and compare them with similar engineering pilots at Drexel, Clemson, and Arizona State Universities, exploring how these four programs cross multiple disciplinary boundaries through reading, writing, and communication elements. Further, a writing assessment I designed and analyzed indicates that Texas A&M Coalition students become better writers than traditional Engineering students, thus measuring a difference in writing that is at least partially attributed to WAC elements in classroom instruction, curriculum development, and faculty innovation.;This case study also examines the attitudes among Humanities, Engineering, and Science faculty and administrators, revealing how their diverse values impinge on WAC development. Linguistic theories about discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1987), politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987), and markers of stance (Biber & Finegan, 1989) provide analytic tools to code and analyze lexical markings of hedges, absolutes, and emphatics. Participants' attempts to create solidarity and cohesion also reveal identification strategies (Burke, 1950/1969), providing further evidence of the division between disciplinary values. Especially interesting is how language betrays power and attitude differentials between the teaching faculty and administrators.;My findings demonstrate that WAC may have subtle, but serious language and attitude problems, which may unconsciously alienate the very people with whom English faculty collaborate. WAC efforts may be compromised by faculty discourse, which appears to be creating gaps even as faculty members work to create cohesion and collegiality. To strengthen existing programs and initiate new ones, WAC research needs to become more focused on the gaps between teaching and administrative values and make deliberate, conscious efforts to attend to the attitudes English faculty express in their interactions.