"This is Chemistry, Not Literature": Faculty Perceptions of Student Writing

A preliminary study examined what kind of writing goes on at a the university: what faculty assign; how they see the function of writing; and what they see as "good" writing. Survey respondents were 1300 regular faculty and teaching assistants in the liberal arts and sciences, with follow-up interviews of 17 selected faculty. The 103 item survey and interviews were voluntary; the return rate was almost 15% (107 of 562 faculty and 84 of 741 teaching assistants). Results indicated most faculty's use of writing in the classroom is of the learning-to-write variety--only sparse samples of writing-to-learn practices were found. Findings suggest that, while some faculty are concerned about writing, they may not be able to make their implicit understandings of writing explicit; nor are all aware of the broader potential of writing for their teaching. Faculty vary in how they view the function of writing: many regard it as a way for students to display what they know in the course; a few see it as a way for students to learn what they did not know before; and some understand it to be an intrinsic element of their discipline. The language teachers used to characterize good writing varied by discipline; those in the arts used words like "creative,""imaginative"; those in the humanities used "vivacious" and "eloquent"; those in the sciences used "analytical" and "theory-driven." (Contains 9 references, an outline, and a factor analysis of terms for "good writing".) (CR)