Writing in and across Disciplines
CHANGE FROM INSIDE OUT – INITIATING CURRICULUM REFORM BY DEPARTMENTAL SELFREFLECTION
Svenja Kaduk¹, Swantje Lahm²
¹Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany ²Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
More and more Writing Programs are involved in contexts of institutional or curricular change, e.g. in the context of the Quality Pact for Teaching in Germany. But how can Writing Programs become Institutional Change Agents (Condon, Rutz 2012)? In order to address this problem, whole departments have to be involved. In German universities this is very difficult because of the high degree of autonomy faculty and departments have with respect to teaching. Top Down approaches to curriculum development are met with strong resistance. In 2012 we initiated a Bottom Up departmental process at our university (Bielefeld) aiming to reform the First Year of Study by introducing writing to learn in introductory courses. Now we want to deepen departmental commitment by leading interviews with faculty based on the Decodingthe DisciplinesApproach (Pace, Middendorf 2004) in which faculty members reflect upon their disciplinary ways of knowing, doing and writing. We expect that this deep reflection will help to further support our reform process that aims to integrate writing as a fundamental mode of disciplinary learning into curricula. In our presentation we will present first findings from the interviews, describe the ways we recruited faculty and outline our plans for the future. We will discuss the pros and cons of our interviewapproach as an instrument for initiating change. Participants will get to know the Decodingthe DisciplinesApproach, which in our context we use as a basis for Curriculum Development, but which can be used in other contexts as well, f.e. assignment design.
References
Carter, M. (2007) ‘Ways of Knowing, Doing, and Writing in the Disciplines’. College Composition and Communication 58 (3), 385–418
Condon, W., and Rutz, C. (2012) ‘A Taxonomy of Writing Across the Curriculum Programs: Evolving to Serve Broader Agendas’. College Composition and Communication 64 (2), 357–382. available from <http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CCC/0642dec2012/CCC0642Taxonomy.pdf> [21 January 2015]
Knight, P. T., and Trowler, P. R. (2000) ‘Departmentlevel Cultures and the Improvement of Learning and Teaching’. Studies in Higher Education 25 (1), 69–83
Oliver, S. L., and Hyun, E. (2011) ‘Comprehensive curriculum reform in higher education: collaborative engagement of faculty and administrators’. Journal of Case Studies in Education 2, 1–20. available from <http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10649.pdf> [21 January 2015]
Pace, D., and Middendorf, J. (2004) ‘Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking’. in Decoding the disciplines: Helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking . ed. by Pace, D., and Middendorf, J. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1–12