Playing Devil’s Advocate: Evaluating the Literature of the WAC/WID Movement
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Evaluating the Literature of the WAC/WID Movement
复制标题
唱反调：评估 WAC/WID 运动的文献
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Fowler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robert Ochsner;J. Fowler
本次审查考虑了支持和反对跨课程写作（WAC）和学科写作（WID）的证据。在定义了 WAC 和 WID 术语和概念并回顾了 WAC/WID 运动主要发展的文献之后，作者建议更准确地定义关键术语，并更一致地采用多模式学习来应对不同的学习方式。注意到肯定学生成绩的复杂性，特别是当成功毫无条件地归因于 WAC/WID 举措时，作者对支持 WAC/WID 目标和教学法所引用的证据提出了质疑。他们还考虑了 WAC/WID 举措的货币成本。
This review considers evidence cited in support of and in opposition to Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID). After defining WAC and WID terms and concepts and reviewing the literature on key developments of the WAC/WID movement, the authors recommend that key terms be defined more precisely and that multimodal learning be adopted more consistently to address varied learning styles. Noting the complexities of affirming student achievement, specifically when success is attributed without qualification to WAC/WID initiatives, the authors question evidence cited in support of WAC/WID goals and pedagogies. They also consider the monetary costs of WAC/WID initiatives.