Print

Print


Doug,
It is true that without the test, WAC would perhaps not be there for the
reasons that Laurence explains in his article.  But Laurentian is perhaps
ready to recognize (at least committed WAC profs are) that the test and WAC
are in some kind of theoretical opposition and contradiction.  Whereas once
upon a time the test was a catalyst for putting together the WAC programme,
the time is near for us to fully realize that it stops us from actually doing
greater things in WAC just because some profs see WAC as remedial to the test
and focus more on learning to write rather than writing to learn.
 
Secondly, in WAC we try to stress that writing is discipline-specific and
that writing instruction is also.  The test can only measure generic types of
writing -- mostly geared to humanities.  That is why many of our science
students get upset over the types of questions which they feel disadvantage
them.
 
Wac stresses the idea that writing is a process which for most of us takes
more than 2 hours.  The test sends a message that in two hours, students
should have a fairly good copy on one of three topics they might know very
little about.
 
Given more time, I could probably find more to say.  What do YOU think?  Your
suggestions or ideas would certainly be appreciated.  I should add that SOME
of us think getting rid of the test is a good idea. HOWEVER, I don't think it
will happen quickly.  We need to get more thinking our way, but in order to
do this, we have to develop a solid WAC programme first.  I think we are on
our way thanks to people like Laurence and Philippa as well as Susan Dobra
and Cathy Schryer before.  I think our programme will get even better as it
ages.
Normand