Benz, Brad, et al. “WPAs, Writing Programs And The Common Reading Experience.” WPA: Writing Program Administration – Journal Of The Council Of Writing Program Administrators 37.1 (2013): 11-32. Education Source. Web. 15 May 2015.
This article interrogates the effectiveness of the Common Reading Experience (CRE) by analyzing its function within the contexts of three academies: The University of Texas at Arlington, Duke University, and Fort Lewis College. Its “…aim is to help WPAs consider the ongoing complexities involved with how they can choose to respond to, strengthen, resist, and/or otherwise engage with CREs” (12). And the authors conclude that “…inclusion of the CRE into FYC can reify misconceptions that FYC is a service course of a skills course without content. It can compromise FYC program autonomy and stress administrative and labor resources. At the same time, wide-scale disconnects between teh CRE and FYC may engender missed opportunities…” (28).
The example institutions represent different situations employing the CRE; a WPA embedded within the English Dept (UTA) administering the CRE in “collaboration with university administrators” (16); an IWP administering a summer reading program and “invited” by Student Affairs to participate in the CRE (non-mandatory); and an IWP of a small school, Fort Lewis College (FLC), fully engaging (voluntary basis) with other departments to develop curriculum around the CRE.
According to the authors (WPAs at the institutions anchoring the study), some of the challenges facing CRE implementation include:
- compromised autonomy of WP
- resistant faculty
- insufficient resources for training and curriculum design
- conflicting goals with the “literacy sponsor” promoting the CRE (i.e. Student Affairs)
- emphasized gap between “professional staff” and “academic faculty”
- disconnect between student perception of “academic community” and “social community”; a perception devoid of “critical reading and intellectual discussion”
But they offer suggestions for meeting some of these challenges, though some suggestions are understandably vague (“…effectively argue for WP and WP faculty…” (29). Other suggestions are more concrete, such as scheduling “resistant” faculty into courses appropriate for abstaining from the CRE (26).
Kristen says
This is really smart work and it’s going to serve you so well in your comps and diss. Nicely done!