Writing in the Sociology Curriculum: What Types and ...

Download PDF
4 downloads 0 Views 745KB Size Report
Comment
Goldsmid, Charles A. and Everett K. Wilson. 1980. Passing on Sociology: The Teaching of a Disci ... Information Systems Education 14(4):389-99. Lackey, Chad.
461453 61453Teaching SociologyGrauerholz et al. 2012

TSOXXX10.1177/0092055X124

Writing in the Sociology Curriculum:  What Types and How Much Writing Do We Assign?

Teaching Sociology 41(1) 46­–59 © American Sociological Association 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0092055X12461453 http://ts.sagepub.com

Liz Grauerholz1, Joanna Eisele1, and Nicole Stark1

Abstract We analyzed undergraduate sociology course syllabi to determine how prevalent writing is, the types of writing used, and whether assignment of writing and specific types of writing vary by type of course goals, gender of instructor, institutional type, or type of course. Almost all courses represented in these syllabi incorporate writing, with traditional (transactional) writing being the most common.  Writing is more likely in courses that seek to enhance students’ critical thinking; transactional writing is used in courses stating critical thinking and sociological imagination/thinking as goals; and expressive writing is used more often in courses specifying critical thinking as a goal. Female instructors incorporate more writing, especially expressive types, than their male counterparts. Implications for disciplinary writing practices are discussed.

Keywords writing across the curriculum, student writing, sociology curriculum

Writing has long been considered an essential pedagogical tool for teacher-scholars across disciplines, and this is certainly true for sociologists. Many of the disciplinary goals for students (Goldsmid and Wilson 1980; McKinney et al. 1991; Wagenaar 1991, 2004) call for deep learning and critical thinking, which writing can facilitate. Writing assignments are integral to innovative teaching methods described in the issues of Teaching Sociology. Institutional practices, especially those influenced by the writing-across-the-curriculum movement, also encourage writing in the discipline. Yet, we know very little about what types of writing sociologists use and for what purposes. This study fills this gap by exploring the prevalence and nature of writing assignments gleaned from a large sample of sociology course syllabi.

Linking Writing to Learning Although writing and learning are not synonymous, they are closely linked (Emig 1977). Indeed, as Walvoord and Smith (1982:9) note, “One cannot study the process of writing without realizing that it is intimately linked with the process of thinking and learning and that success in writing depends upon behaviors and skills that must be built and reinforced throughout a student’s learning experiences.” 1

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author: Liz Grauerholz, Department of Sociology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USA Email: [email protected]

Grauerholz et al. Emig (1977:124) identified four important correspondences between writing and learning: reinforcement, feedback, connectiveness, and self-rhythmed. First, through its “inherent reinforcing cycle involving hand, eye, and brain,” writing “marks a uniquely powerful multi-representational mode for learning.” Second, writing provides both immediate and long-term feedback. Feedback is available in the form of review and reevaluation and provides a record of evolution. Third, writing is connective to learning in that it “establishes conceptual groupings and allows for synthetic analysis” (Emig 1977:125). Fourth, writing can facilitate learning because it is selfrhythmed; writing and learning can occur at the same pace. More specifically, writing has been linked to critical thinking. Although there is often confusion over what is meant by critical thinking (Grauerholz and Bouma-Holtrop 2003), it is clear that writing facilitates higher-level thinking (Geertsen 2003). Bean (1996:3) argues that writing “is both a process of doing critical thinking and a product communicating the results of critical thinking” and suggests that when students struggle with writing, they struggle with thought itself. Knoblauch and Brannon (1983:477) further argue that writing enables “new knowledge because it involves precisely that active effort to state relationships, which is at the heart of learning. Composing always entails the search for connections: its nature is to compel the writer to undertake that search.” The point here is that writing is not merely an assessment tool (although it is that too); rather, to write is to learn. When writing is incorporated into a welldesigned assignment with clear learning goals, it becomes “a formidable learning tool” (Hylton and Allen 1993:69). Not all writing assignments facilitate learning, of course. As Bean (2011:16) argues, “When writing is separated from the act of thinking and creating, writing becomes merely a skill that can be learned through grammar drills and through the production of pointless essays that students do not want to write and that teachers do not want to read.” Writing simply for the sake of writing—without clear purpose—is likely to result in busywork and may actually interfere with student learning (Hylton and Allen 1993). Karcher (1988) also suggests that when students do not possess basic skills, such as ability to read and

47 comprehend, writing may interfere with learning. Writing is also not necessarily appropriate for facilitating or assessing all types of learning. For instance, Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) suggest that writing does not help students develop skills for collaborative work or “encultured learning” that occurs through social interaction in the classroom. It is important to note, however, that Brown et al. (1989) were speaking primarily about writing assignments that stress grammar and forms of argument. (Indeed, it is not difficult to envision writing assignments that would facilitate collaborative learning or help students better understand the norms and values of a social group.) Thus, although writing is not the only pedagogical tool for facilitating and assessing learning, it is one of the most powerful. Emig (1977:122) asserts that “writing represents a unique mode of learning—not merely valuable, not merely special, but unique.” She explains that writing, as a mode of learning, is inherently more self-reliant than speaking. Writing is a “slower” process than talking and this slower pace allows for, and encourages, the shuttling among past, present, and future. Wade (1995) also maintains that writing has advantages over oral discussion; writing can be revised and can allow for the refinement of ideas in ways that oral discussions do not. In sociology, writing plays an important role in achieving goals often stated in sociology curriculum. Writing enhances the sociological imagination by engaging students in reflective thinking, or broadening of perspectives (Geertsen 2003). Through writing, students come to see that personal troubles and public issues are related and how troubles experienced privately can be connected to public and structural issues (Bidwell 1995). Roberts (1993) also suggests that writing itself mirrors the sociological imagination in that it is shaped by public and private forces. Karcher (1988) notes that writing is a social event that requires students to write for a variety of audiences, for variety of purposes. Hudd, Sardi, and Lopriore (2013:32-45) found that sociologists clearly recognize the link between writing and developing the sociological imagination. As one of their respondents stated: “One must be able to grasp a sociological concept in order to write about it, yet the process of structuring one’s thoughts onto paper also facilitates this comprehension” (Hudd et al. 2013:36).

48 Arguably, virtually all goals or learning objectives in sociology, such as those surrounding ethics or multicultural awareness, could be achieved or at least enhanced through writing. But there are certain objectives for which writing is critical. We argue that in addition to developing critical thinking skills and sociological imaginations, theoretical mastery is dependent on writing. It is noteworthy that published accounts of pedagogical approaches for teaching theory may be based on various pedagogical methods (such as McDuff’s [2012] or Johnson’s [2001] use of collaborative learning, or Holtzman’s [2005] active learning approach) but all integrate writing to some degree. Writing is important to theoretical mastery because such thinking requires two types of learning. One is “abstract conceptualization” in which “learners try to achieve abstract understanding of the concepts and issues by mastering and internalizing their components and seeing the relationship between new material and other concepts and issues” (Bean 1996:42). The second type of learning required for theoretical mastery is “active experimentation” in which “learners actively use the new concepts to solve problems by applying them to new situations” (Bean 1996:42). Although such thinking may be done without writing, it is difficult to imagine abstract conceptualization or active experimentation being achieved without the benefit of writing.

Linking Types of W   riting to Learning Goals One of the major contributions of the writingacross-the-curriculum movement is creating an understanding that there are different types of writing that serve different (or multiple) purposes. Britton and colleagues (Schools Council [Great Britain] and Britton 1975) distinguish between transactional writing, expressive writing, and poetic writing. Transactional writing is intended to inform, instruct, or persuade an audience. Examples include research papers, proposals, or essays. Transactional writing is the primary type of writing used in educational settings (Freisinger 1982). Expressive writing is reflective and feeling-based; journals or reflection papers are examples. Although transactional writing is the predominant

Teaching Sociology 41(1) form of writing in academia, teachers have increasingly come to see the value of expressive writing such as journals or free-writing to enhance students’ learning (Bean 2011; Hudd, Smart, and Delohery 2011; Reinertsen and Wells 1993; Roth 1985; Schools Council [Great Britain] and Britton 1975). Finally, poetic writing is language as art. Poetic language can be thought of as creative writing. Poems, fiction, and short stories are prime examples of poetic writing. All types of writing can be used to achieve specific sociological learning objectives (Grauerholz 1999), but we suggest that certain types of writing are better suited to different types of learning. To develop students’ critical thinking, for instance, transactional writing is needed. Wade (1995) suggests that writing assignments designed to support critical thinking must include the following components: They must ask questions, define problems clearly, examine evidence, analyze assumptions and biases, avoid emotional reasoning, avoid oversimplification, consider alternative interpretations, and tolerate uncertainty; in other words, transactional or formal writing may be best when helping students acquire critical thinking skills. Informal writing (which often includes expressive writing) may also be useful for helping students think more critically. As Hudd et al. (2011:179) note, “When informal writing is purposefully linked to a set of thinking goals and learning outcomes that are necessary to complete formal course requirements, it can serve as a powerful teaching tool to enhance both thinking and the ability to convey thoughts in writing.” Sociological thinking can be demonstrated through each type of writing, but the process of acquiring a sociological imagination may be particularly achieved through expressive and poetic writing. Expressive writing, especially journals, has been demonstrated to enhance students’ sociological imaginations (Hollander 2000), their understanding of concepts, and their ability to apply concepts to their own lives (Roth 1985; Wagenaar 1984) and take the role of the other (Grauerholz and Scuteri 1989). Indeed, Britton and colleagues (Schools Council [Great Britain] and Britton 1975) argue that expressive writing’s main advantage is that it allows students to discover what they think before they are required to convey

49

Grauerholz et al. knowledge to others. Expressive writing has been found to be limited, however, in terms of helping students learn concrete facts or knowledge that is typically tested on examinations (Day 1994). Poetic writing appears to be less common in sociology but may be an especially powerful tool to help enhance students’ awareness of social norms, interpersonal dynamics, and social issues (Grauerholz 1999).  As Gordy and Peary (2005:396) note: What better way to show one understands a discipline and a society than to use sociological knowledge to create a context in which characters interact, reflect, and observe their social context? Examining the goals of creative (or poetic) writing shows that they are consistent with the goals of sociology and the development of the sociological imagination. For example, Lackey (1994) developed a “social science fiction” assignment in which students use sociological theories and concepts to describe a setting, character, plot, and dialogue. Lackey (1994) explains why such writing works to develop students’ sociological imaginations. Writing fiction requires more than simply being familiar with sociological concepts and theories: “The student-as-author must put herself or himself into the characters’ shoes and live imaginatively in their world. . . . [She or he] must take the role of the other” (Lackey 1994:166). Theoretical sophistication, as noted earlier, requires two types of thinking: abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Abstract conceptualization is best achieved, according to Bean (1996:42), through “formal academic papers that call for thesis-based analyses and arguments” (i.e., transactional writing). Bean (1996) suggests that active experimentation can been achieved through transactional writing but also through creative pieces that demonstrate new concepts (i.e., poetic writing). In sum, there is evidence linking writing to learning. It is a means to demonstrate such learning and requires deep thinking to accomplish. As such, it has become one of the most valuable pedagogical tools in the classroom, despite its time-

consuming nature. As Hudd et al. (2013:32-45) suggest, “It is difficult to imagine the discipline of sociology without its emphasis on written work.” Sociologists are wise to rely on writing to achieve learning goals. Although writing is not the only means to achieve these learning goals, it remains one of the most powerful tools available to instructors. In this study, we explore all types of assigned writing in sociology courses. We examine syllabi from a variety of sociology courses to discern what types of writing are assigned. We also seek to understand the connection between the types of writing and stated learning goals for particular courses. Here, we narrow in on three learning objectives for which writing is critical (that is, goals that cannot be achieved without some type of writing): critical thinking, sociological thinking, and theoretical sophistication.

Methods Data Sources This study uses undergraduate syllabi published in the American Sociological Association’s Teaching Resources Center’s resource guides.1 In all, 44 guides, with publication dates ranging from 1999 to 2004, were coded (see the appendix).2 Although these syllabi are not representative of all sociology courses, they provide insight into a wide range of sociology courses taught within a variety of institutions.3

Sampling and Coding We included resource guides that corresponded to any ASA section (e.g., Teaching the Sociology of Religion [2004]/Section on Religion) as well as guides for three commonly taught courses: Introductory Sociology, Social Problems, and Social Stratification. This selection criterion accounted for almost all courses commonly taught in the sociology curriculum, excluding only highly specialized courses (e.g., Sociology of the Holocaust). For each of the 44 guides selected, we randomly selected (using a random numbers table) 10 syllabi from each guide; if there were fewer than 10, all were coded. In total, we coded 418

50 syllabi from these volumes. We selected out only those for undergraduate courses, bringing the total to 405. This excluded graduate courses, dual-level courses, and courses for which level was unclear. It is important to note that almost no syllabus indicated that the course was writing-intensive.4 Two researchers coded each syllabus for course demographics and writing assignments. Given that these syllabi have been vetted, they were written in clear language, with requirements spelled out. Hence, there was a high level of agreement for all variables used in this study. For institutional or demographic information that was ambiguous, websites were searched for additional information. If no information could be gleaned from the syllabi or additional sources, the variable was coded as missing. For background information on courses and instructors, we used basic categories (e.g., undergraduate; male/female/both[team taught], unclear). For information about institutions, we used the Carnegie classification system (see the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org) to classify them into 1 of 33 categories specified by Carnegie. Coding of goals and assignments proceeded in a “grounded” fashion. We looked for any type of writing—formal and informal, in-class and out-ofclass, graded and ungraded, traditional and nontraditional. These writings ranged from creative writing to traditional library-research papers, essay exams to journals, discussion questions to research proposals, and so on. The same was true for “goals.” We created lists for both goals and assignments as syllabi were coded. The lists were then analyzed and coded into broader categories, if appropriate. This approach allowed us to discover general types of goals or writing assignments but also differentiate among various types. For example, it became clear as we coded for “papers” that we needed to code by length, nature (e.g., whether data are used), in-class versus out-of-class, and so on. Those writing assignments that did not fit within a general category were coded as “other.” The coding and analysis resulted in 27 categories for goals and 16 categories for writing assignments.

Teaching Sociology 41(1)

Variables Writing assignments. For each of the 16 categories of writing assignments, values included Yes (required), Yes (optional), Not Mentioned, Unclear, and Not Applicable (NA). If a particular type of writing was required or optional, it was coded 1; if not mentioned or NA, it was coded 0. “Unclear” was coded as missing. From the 16 categories and values, a single dichotomous variable Any Writing was constructed. Any Writing was coded 1 if any of the 16 types of writing was coded Yes or Optional. Thus, Any Writing represents a broad measure of the percentage of courses that use some type of writing, even if only optional. To extend our analysis and allow us to make further comparisons, we also grouped writing assignments into broad categories of types of writing identified by Britton and colleagues (Schools Council [Great Britain] and Britton 1975). These were Transactional Writing, Expressive Writing, and Poetic Writing. Transactional Writing was coded 1 if a syllabi listed “abstracts or annotated bibliography,” “documents,” “essays,” “major empirical research papers,” “mini empirical research papers,” “research proposal,” “medium papers,” “longer papers,” or “traditional libraryresearch papers” as required or optional (and 0 if none of these was mentioned). Expressive Writing was coded 1 if “field notes,” “in-class, short writings,” “journals,” “questions,” or “short reflection/ thought papers” were required or optional, and 0 if not. Poetic Writing was coded 1 if a syllabus stated that “creative writing” was used and 0 if not. By creating three dichotomous variables, we are able to see how many courses use one or more of these types of writing. Goals/objectives. Most syllabi (96.3 percent) provide a statement or information about course goals and objectives, and from these we derived measures of goals. Here we focus on three goals for which writing is critical: Critical Thinking, Sociological Thinking, and Theoretical Sophistication. Critical Thinking was coded 1 if there were any mention of “critical thinking” as a goal and 0 if not. This included those syllabi that used “critical” as an adverb (e.g., “This course is designed to help you critically understand the social world.”) or

51

Grauerholz et al. adjective (e.g., “This course is designed to improve critical thinking skills.”). Sociological Thinking was coded 1 if the syllabus included goals such as “sociological lens,” “sociological perspective,” “sociological framework,” “think sociologically,” or “sociological imagination” and 0 if these were not stated. Theoretical Sophistication was coded 1 if any mention was made of students gaining theoretical understanding in the course, and 0 if not. For Type of Institution, we used the Carnegie classification system (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org) that classifies institutions on a variety of dimensions. From the 33 categories used by the Carnegie Foundation, we group institutions into 5 types: Doctoral, Master’s, Baccalaureate, Associate of Arts, and Unknown (29 institutions could not be classified and were treated as missing). For Gender we coded whether the instructor was a man, woman, both (as in team taught), or unclear. For Type of Course we distinguished between substantive (e.g., Sociology of Religion), introductory, theory, methods, capstone, or other. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of sample used here.

Findings Prevalence and Types of Writing in Sociology Curriculum We first examined how many syllabi mention some type of writing and found that nearly all courses (94.3 percent) did so (see Table 2). We also found that most courses require multiple writing assignments. The average number of writing types required is 2.32; the maximum was 9 (in this case, only 2 were required, the others were “optional”). In contrast, we found that 21.5 percent of syllabi list only one writing assignment. In those courses that require only one type of writing, the most common are short reflective papers (usually fewer than 5 pages) (31.0 percent) and essay exams (27.6 percent). As seen in Table 2, the types of writing used varied considerably. Almost half of all undergraduate syllabi specify essay exams and nearly half short reflection papers. Short reflection papers were used in 46.2 percent of syllabi and included such writing as book reports, group project reports,

Table 1. Sample Characteristics for Undergraduate Syllabi (N = 405) Variable Type of institution  PhD  MA  BA  AA  Other Type of course  Substantive  Introductory  Theory  Methods  Capstone  Other Gender of instructor  Male  Female  Missing Goal/objective stated   Critical thinking   Thinking sociologically   Theoretical sophistication

Frequency (%) 217 (53.6) 98 (24.2) 57 (14.1) 4 (7.2) 29 (7.2) 358 (88.4) 10 (2.5) 10 (2.5) 24 (5.9) 2 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 197 (48.6) 202 (49.9) 6 (1.5) 158 (39.0) 218 (53.8) 40 (9.9)

or elaborated answers to questions. Medium length (6-10 pages) papers were assigned about twice as often as longer papers or traditional libraryresearch papers. At first glance, it appears that most courses do not use nontraditional forms of writing. Yet, it should be noted that “type of writing” was coded as “other” for 17.5 percent of syllabi. Upon further investigation, we found that these assignments included a wide range of assignments, including written homework assignments, outlines, development of or contribution to websites, case studies, memos, news analyses, and study guide questions. Of these, written homework assignments, short answers, outlines, and websites were the most common. We also explored whether writing featured more prominently in syllabi across types of courses or institutions or varied by instructor characteristics. Given the lack of variation in courses requiring writing overall, it is not surprising that few differences were found (see Table 3). Only gender was significant (chi square = 12.46; p < .05).5 That

52

Teaching Sociology 41(1)

Table 2. Types of Writing Used If Writings Assigned in Syllabus, Which Type of Writing?

Undergraduate Syllabi Frequency (%)a

Any writing Essays (including take-home) Short reflection Medium papers (6-10) Other Traditional library-research papers “Mini” empirical research papers Journals Longer papers (11-15) In-class/short writings Questions (discussion/exams) Field notes Abstracts or annotated bibliography Research proposal Documents Major empirical research papers Creative writing

389 (94.3) 200 (49.4) 193 (47.7) 94 (23.2) 71 (17.5) 57 (14.1) 57 (14.1) 49 (12.1) 44 (10.9) 40 (9.9) 36 (8.9) 24 (5.9) 22 (5.4) 20 (4.9) 18 (4.4) 11 (2.7) 2 (0.5)

a

More than one type of writing may be used in a course, so percentage exceeds 100 percent.

Table 3. Courses Using Any Type of Writing, Transactional Writing, and Expressive Writing by Type of Institution, Type of Course, and Instructor Gender Percentage (N) That Use Any Writing Type of institution  PhD  MA  BA  AA Type of course  Substantive  Introductory  Theory  Methods  Capstone  Other Gender of instructor  Male  Female   Both (team taught)  Unclear

Percentage (N) That Percentage (N) That Use Transactional Writing Use Expressive Writing

94.0 (204) 95.9 (94) 98.2 (56) 100.0 (4)

81.5 (176) 80.4 (78) 80.4 (45) 75.0 (3)

62.7 (136) 59.2 (58) 75.4 (43) 100 (4)

94.4 (338) 100 (10) 80.0 (8) 95.8 (23) 100 (2) 100 (1)

81.1 (287) 90.0 (9) 70.0 (7) 77.3 (17) 100 (2) 100 (1)

64.0 (229) 80.0 (8) 50.0 (5) 54.2 (13) 50.0 (1) 100 (1)

91.4 (180) 98.0 (198)a 100 (3) 33.3 (1)

78.7 (155) 83.2 (168)

52.3 (103) 74.3 (150)b

a

Significant at .05 level. Significant at .001 level.

b

is, women are more likely than men to assign some type of writing in their courses. The lack of association between type of course and any type of writing may also stem from the

fact that we aggregate all substantive courses and these courses are likely to have as many differences as they do similarities. Also, the number of introductory-level courses or specialty courses

53

Grauerholz et al. Table 4. Number of Writing Assignments in Introductory Level Courses (Includes Social Problems) (N = 20) Number of Writing Assignments Valid 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total

Frequency

Percentage

 1  5  7  3  4 20

 5.0 25.0 35.0 15.0 20.0 100

Note: Mean = 2.2; standard deviation = 1.2.

(e.g., theory) was very small. Nevertheless, we were struck by the fact that all Introduction to Sociology courses in our sample required writing since these courses are often large and filled with less experienced writers, requiring more work from instructors. In fact, when we combine Introductory Sociology syllabi and those from Social Problems—another course typically taught at the introductory level—we find that 19 of 20 (95 percent) have some type of required writing (see Table 4). The average number of writing assignments is 2.2—essentially the same as that for other, more advanced courses. In these introductory-level courses, 55 percent use essay exams, and an equal percentage (55 percent) use short reflection papers. Although many of these writings are fairly short, more intensive writing courses are not uncommon at this level. For instance, one course required two 5-page written exercises, a 3-page paper that outlined a class presentation, and written responses to questions that were posed in class discussion. Another required a 1- to 2-page analytical essay (which was peer-reviewed in class), memos based on readings for each class, and a 5-page research paper. We were also interested in whether general types of writing (transactional, expressive, poetic) were more or less common in sociology courses and whether certain types of courses or instructors were more likely to use them. Most syllabi (80.7 percent) specify transactional writing, 63.5 percent use expressive writing, and only 0.5 percent use poetic writing. Expressive writing is seldom used exclusively; that is, when some type of expressive

writing was stated, 82.1 percent also use some type of transactional writing. Also, poetic assignments are never used alone; they are always used with both expressive and transactional writings. Of course, the number of syllabi including poetic writing was very small, but the syllabi with poetic writing were among those reporting multiple types of writing assignments (some of which were optional). For the most part, type of institution and type of course were not significantly related to type of writing assignments although women are much more likely than men to require expressive writing (74.3 percent versus 52.3; p < .000).

Linking Writing to Course Goals The syllabi included a wide variety of learning goals (we coded for 27 different goals/objectives).6 Here we focus on three goals for which we argue writing is essential: critical thinking, sociological thinking, and theoretical sophistication. As seen in Table 5, courses that state critical thinking as a goal are significantly more likely to use some writing than those that do not state this goal (chi square = 3.54; p = .044). They were also significantly more likely to use transactional writing (chi square = 4.74; p =.019) as well as expressive writing (chi square = 9.72; p = .001) compared with those that did not state critical thinking as a goal. Overall, those courses stating that thinking sociologically is a goal were no more likely to use some type of writing than those that did not specify such a goal. They were, however, more likely to use transactional writing than those that did not claim such a goal (85.3 versus 75.4 percent) (chi square = 6.37; p = .008). This was not true for expressive writing; there was no significant difference in use of expressive writing for courses specifying thinking sociologically and those that did not. Also, courses that included theoretical sophistication as a goal were no more likely to include any type of writing than those that do not mention this goal. This pattern did not fade when we examined transactional or expressive writing specifically. In other words, those instructors who articulate that theoretical thinking is a learning goal are not more likely to require writing of any type. In fact, when

54

Teaching Sociology 41(1)

Table 5. Cross-tabulations for Link Between Stated Goals and Writing (n = 405) Critical Thinking Stated, % (n)  

Yes

Any writing used Transactional writing used Expressive writing used

a

No

Thinking Sociologically Stated, % (n) Yes

No

Theoretical Sophistication Stated, % (n) Yes

No

97.5 (154) 86.1a (136)

92.3 (228) 77.3 (191)

55.3 (210) 45.3 (172) 85.3b (186) 75.4 (141)

96.8 (30) 87.5 (35)

94.1 (352) 80.0 (292)

72.8c (115)

57.5 (142)

66.1 (144)

65.0 (26)

63.3 (231)

60.4 (113)

a

.05. .01. c .001. b

we reviewed more carefully those syllabi for theory courses, we noted that the writing that is required is relatively minimal, such as an optional abstract assignment or simply essay exams.

Discussion It has been suggested that writing in sociology is often forfeited due to time constraints, especially as class size increases (Green and Klug 1990). Our findings, however, suggest the opposite. Almost all courses we sampled in the ASA resource guides used some type of writing. Furthermore, these instructors offer students a wide variety of writing assignments. Instructors seem to rely little on the standard “term paper”; in fact, such writing assignments appear to be relatively rare. Many of the assigned writings can be characterized as traditional academic (transactional) type of writing, which is appropriate given the institutional context and the goals of many sociology instructors. But nearly two out of every three instructors also include some type of expressive writing, usually journals. The large number of instructors in general who use expressive writing may reflect the impact of feminist pedagogy that values “student voices” and the writing-across-thecurriculum movement that encourages instructors to use informal writing to achieve course goals and student learning (Bean 2011; Chow et al. 2003). The use of expressive writing in these courses is encouraging given that it has been found to enhance the sociological imagination. However, we found only two syllabi that incorporated

creative writing assignments in their courses (in fact, there are a limited number of publications in Teaching Sociology that introduce poetic writing assignments). Whether this absence reflects sociology courses in general is unclear, but the apparent underuse of poetic writing assignments is noteworthy. Poetic writing would provide another way to introduce variety into the sociology curriculum and possibly enhance students’ sociological imaginations. This study also explored whether there was a connection between course goals and writing. Although we cannot determine from syllabi whether the writing assignment was expressly intended to achieve a particular goal, those instructors who emphasized critical thinking were more likely to use writing assignments (both transactional and expressive). However, when theoretical sophistication or thinking sociologically was a stated goal, instructors did not use more writing overall (although transactional writing was more common in courses indicating that sociological thinking was a goal). Of course, since most courses used writing of some type, these findings should be viewed with caution, but it is worth considering the extent to which sociologists explicitly link writing (and specific types of writing) to course goals. Writing of any type requires far more time and effort to assess than multiple-choice questions and may be less preferred by students (Griffin 1983; Kuechler and Simkin 2003). Mentoring students in writing is a daunting task, especially when done in “an ad hoc manner,” and the results are often less

Grauerholz et al. than rewarding (Anderson and Holt 1990:180). So why do so many—94 percent in our study—incorporate writing in undergraduate courses? Hudd et al. (2013) suggest that the prevalence of writing in the sociology curriculum reflects the awareness sociologists have of the pedagogical importance of writing to learn about the social world and perhaps institutional requirements under which sociologists operate. If this is the case, our findings concerning the variety of writing assignments (including informal), and the clear tendency not to use longer, traditional term papers, suggest that sociologists attempt to achieve these learning goals or satisfy institutional requirements by adapting writing assignments to their courses and students in unique ways. Shorter, easier-to-grade assignments are by far the most common writing our students are being asked to do. Although many instructors use minimal amounts of writing, we found that others incorporate extensive writing into their courses even though courses are not designated as “writing intensive.” Some have clearly taken the time to develop original, provocative assignments. Thus, although some sociologists may be assigning writing to satisfy institutional requirements, many clearly take writing very seriously. Indeed, as Hudd et al. (2013) found, the majority of sociology instructors view writing as both valuable to students and essential to their roles. Such commitment to writing can also be seen in the introductory-level courses we studied here. Given the time and effort required to assign writing, even informal types, we might expect instructors of (typically larger) introductory courses to avoid assigning writing. We found the opposite. Not only are multiple writing assignments the norm, these assignments were not necessarily simpler or shorter than those used in more advanced courses. Given the small number of introductory-level courses included in our sample, it is impossible to know whether these patterns reflect wider practices, but if they do, we see this as a positive reflection on the discipline. Carefully constructed informal writing can help inexperienced students gain confidence and skills and prepare them for more formal writing (Bean 2011; Hudd et al. 2011). When writing is scaffolded in this way, it becomes a powerful means to achieve student learning at all levels (Massengill 2011).

55 Unfortunately, we were not able to discern some important information that would provide a more rounded picture of writing in sociology. For one, most resource guides did not provide course characteristics so we could not determine, for example, whether writing was linked to class size or what types of writing are offered in large classes. In large classes it is difficult to give students the opportunity to improve their writing through several revision and critique cycles. We also have no way to determine the quality of writing assignments, since most syllabi do not contain the specifics of the assignment. Thus, the high percentage of instructors using writing does not necessarily mean that the writing assignments are properly constructed or assessed. Indeed, Green and Klug (1990) have argued that even writing assignments that purport to facilitate critical thinking do not directly challenge the ideas being presented and, therefore, students do not learn to defend their own arguments and rebut those of others. A further limitation is that our study reveals only what is stated in syllabi. Syllabi are akin to contracts between students and instructors and do not reveal the tools and techniques used by instructors. It is certainly possible that instructors use informal (ungraded) writing during class that may not be reflected in the syllabus. Ideally, we would also want to know more about the instructor’s goals for the assignment than is typically conveyed in the syllabus. Our data cannot explain, for example, why women require expressive writing more than men, why there is a disconnect between use of writing and the stated goal of theoretical sophistication, or why so few instructors use poetic writing assignments. These limitations open new possibilities for future research, however. For instance, to our knowledge, the link between gender and the use of writing as a pedagogical tool has not been explored. We believe that this is an important area for future research. Do female instructors value writing more than male instructors do? If so, how does this affect classroom dynamics, workload (grading), and students’ experience in the classroom? There is also a lack of empirical research on the link between creative writing and learning. Does creative writing enhance students’ sociological imagi-

56 nations or help instructors to achieve other disciplinary goals? Is writing at the introductorylevel standard practice and, if so, how does such writing encourage students’ sociological imaginations and prepare them for more sophisticated sociological thinking in later courses? How do instructors of Introductory Sociology handle the workload associated with student writing? Is writing in certain types of courses, such as theory, less common and, if so, why? Answers to these questions not only could clarify why we assign writing but also could help foster larger departmental and disciplinary discussions about the importance of integrating various types of writing into the sociology curriculum.

Conclusion Course syllabi provide a glimpse into the teaching strategies used by a diverse sample of sociology instructors. Syllabi reveal what these instructors believe to be most important in terms of the goals and means of sociological instruction. Our study suggests that writing plays a central role in the sociological curriculum. Not only do almost all instructors use some type of writing to enhance students’ learning, but they use many different types of writing. In fact, our study probably understates the importance and variety of writing since we analyzed syllabi only rather than actual assignments or classroom practices. We can see the same general patterns emerge when we examine the nature and structure of writing assignments typically published in Teaching Sociology, where both formal and informal writings are well integrated into the course and used to achieve specific learning goals. It would appear then that the writingacross-the-curriculum movement has shaped the way sociologists teach. The writing-across-the-curriculum movement has done more than simply make writing integral to sociology courses; it has expanded our pedagogical toolkits by legitimizing all types of writing, provided they are linked to learning goals. Although we believe these trends to be positive, it is worth considering whether certain types of writing skills are being neglected and implications for this shift. In particular, the traditional term paper appears to be an anomaly in sociology courses.

Teaching Sociology 41(1) Students’ lack of experience with synthesizing large bodies of literature may have implications for those who pursue graduate work and we may find ourselves increasingly shifting the responsibility of teaching not only disciplinary but also basic academic writing to the graduate level. But for those undergraduate students for whom we hope sociology will come alive, our use of many types of writing assignments is likely to capture their interests and, it is hoped, their sociological imaginations.

Appendix List of ASA Sections and Corresponding Resource Guides Analyzed 1.

Aging and the Life Course: Teaching Sociology of Aging and the Life Course. 5th ed. 2000. 2. Alcohol, Drugs, and Tobacco: The Sociology of Alcohol and Drugs. 2000. 3. Children and Youth: Sociology of Children/Childhood. 2nd ed. 2003. 4. Collective Behavior and Social Movements: Social Movements and Collective Action: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 3rd ed. 2003. 5. Community and Urban Sociology: Rural Sociology: Teaching About the Complexities and Diversities of American Rural Life. 2003. 6. Comparative & Historical Sociology: Syllabi & Instructional Materials for Teaching Comparative & Historical Sociology. 2001. 7. Crime, Law, and Deviance: Teaching Criminology: Resources and Issues. 2000. 8. Crime, Law, and Deviance: Teaching the Sociology of Deviance. 2003. 9. Culture: Course Syllabi on the Sociology of Culture. 2nd ed. 2000. 10. Economic Sociology: Economic Sociology: Syllabi & Instructional Materials. 2nd ed. 2002. 11. Economic Sociology: Social Stratification Courses: Syllabi & Instructional Materials. 5th ed. 2004. 12. Education: Teaching Sociology of Education: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 5th ed. 2000.

57

Grauerholz et al. 13. Emotions: Sociology of Emotions: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 1999. 14. Environment and Technology: Syllabi and Instructional Materials in Environmental Sociology. 5th ed. 2003. 15. Family: Teaching about Families: A Collection of Essays, Syllabi, Projects, and Assignments, Websites, and Bibliographies. 2004. 16. Family: Teaching about Family Violence: A Collection of Instructional Materials. 3rd ed. 2003. 17. International Migration: Issues in U.S. Immigration: Resources and Suggestions for High School Teachers and College Instructors. 2004. 18. International Migration: Internationalizing Sociology in the Age of Globalization. 1999. 19. Latino/a Sociology: Chicano/Latino Studies in Sociology: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 5th ed. 2002. 20. Law: Syllabi and Instructional Materials for Sociology of Law. 2nd ed. 2000. 21. Marxist Sociology: Teaching Sociology from a Marxist Perspective. 2nd ed. 2002. 22. Medical Sociology: A Handbook for Teaching Medical Sociology. 4th ed. 2001. 23. Mental Health: Teaching Materials for the Sociology of Mental Health and Illness. 2000. 24. Methodology: Qualitative Research Methods: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 3rd ed. 2001. 25. Methodology: Research Methods Courses: Syllabi, Assignments and Projects. 5th ed. 2000. 26. Methodology: Syllabi and Instructional Materials for Social Statistics. 2000. 27. Organizations, Occupations and Work: Organizational Sociology: A Handbook of Syllabi and Other Teaching Resources. 2002. 28. Organizations, Occupations and Work: Sociology of Work and Occupations. 5th ed. 2002. 29. Peace, War, and Social Conflict: Teaching Sociology of Peace and War: A Curriculum Guide. 4th ed. 2003. 30. Political Economy of the World-System: Syllabi and Teaching Resources

for the Sociology of Development and Women in Development. 1999. 31. Political Sociology: Political Sociology: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 4th ed. 2000. 32. Population: Syllabi and Instructional Material in Demography. 4th ed. 2003. 33. Race and Ethnic Minorities: Teaching Race and Ethnic Relations: Syllabi and Instructional Materials. 4th ed. 2001. 34. Race, Gender, and Class: Race, Gender, and Class in Sociology: Toward an Inclusive Curriculum. 5th ed. 2003. 35. Religion: Teaching the Sociology of Religion. 4th ed. 2004. 36. Science, Knowledge, and Technology: Syllabi & Instructional Materials for the Sociology of Science, Knowledge, & Technology. 4th ed. 2003. 37. Sex and Gender: The Sociology of Gender: Syllabi & Other Instructional Materials. 5th ed. 2002. 38. Sex and Gender/ Organizations, Occupations and Work. The Sociology of Gender and Work: Syllabi and Teaching Materials. 2nd ed. 2002. 39. Sexualities: The Sociology of Sexuality & Sexual Orientation: Syllabi & Teaching Materials. 4th ed. 2002. 40. Social Psychology: Teaching Social Psychology. 2nd ed. 2003. 41. Sociological Practice: The Clinical Sociology Resource Book. 5th ed. 2001. 42. Theory: Resource Book for Teaching Sociological Theory. 4th ed. 2001. 43. Introductory Sociology Resource Manual. 2000. 44. Instructor’s Resource Manual on Social Problems. 3rd ed. 2001.

Notes Reviewers for this article were, in alphabetical order, Kwenda Maxwell, Robin D. Moremen, and Deniz Yucel. 1. The American Sociological Association has since eliminated the hard copies of guides, replacing them with materials on the Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology (TRAILS) website [http://www.asanet.org/ teaching/resources/TRAILS.cfm]. 2. These volumes encompass the most recent guides published in nonelectronic form prior to

58 the transition to TRAILS. Syllabi from these resource guides were used rather than TRAILS for greater ease and accuracy in sampling and coding. 3. The degree to which these syllabi are representative of sociology courses is unclear. Syllabi submissions are not refereed and, indeed, the “call for syllabi” is wide. Some editors discuss criteria for inclusion, but many do not. When stated, factors such as innovativeness, diversity of approaches, completeness, clarity, and so on, are usually stressed; “quality” usually is not. Thus, we assume that these syllabi are at least somewhat representative of sociology courses taught. 4. There is no reliable way to determine whether a course is designated writing-intensive (WI) from these syllabi. Instructors or editors may have edited out this detail and courses that meet criteria for WI (Grauerholz 1999) are not necessarily designated by their institutions as such. 5. For this analysis, “both” and “unclear” were deleted (N = 399). 6. One goal was “writing skills,” which was specified as a goal in only 10.4 percent of the syllabi.

Acknowledgments The authors thank Greg Gibson for his generous assistance in coding the syllabi and the editors of the ASA resource guides, many of whom donated copies of their volumes for this research project.

References Anderson, Leon and Mara Holt. 1990. “Teaching Writing in Sociology: A Social Constructionist Approach.” Teaching Sociology 18(2):179-84. Bean, John. 2011. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, John. 1996. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bidwell, Lee. 1995. “Helping Students Develop a Sociological Imagination through Innovative Writing Assignments.” Teaching Sociology 23(4):401-06. Brown, John Seely, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher 18(1):32-42.

Teaching Sociology 41(1) Chow, Esther Ngan-Ling, Chadwick Fleck, Gang-Hua Fan, Joshua Joseph, and Deanna M. Lyter. 2003. “Exploring Critical Feminist Pedagogy: Infusing Dialogue, Participation, and Experience in Teaching and Learning.” Teaching Sociology 31(3):259-75. Day, Susan. 1994. “Learning in Large Sociology Classes: Journals and Attendance.” Teaching Sociology 22(2):151-65. Emig, Janet. 1977. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” College Composition and Communication 28(2):122-28. Freisinger, Robert. 1982. “Cross-disciplinary Writing Programs: Beginnings.” Pp. 3-13 in Language Connections: Writing and Reading across the Curriculum, edited by T. Fulwiler and A. Young. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Geertsen, Reed. 2003. “Rethinking Thinking about HigherLevel Thinking.” Teaching Sociology 31(1):1-19. Goldsmid, Charles A. and Everett K. Wilson. 1980. Passing on Sociology: The Teaching of a Discipline. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Gordy, Laurie L. and Alexandria Peary. 2005. “Bringing Creativity into the Classroom: Using Sociology to Write First-Person Fiction.” Teaching Sociology 33(4):396-402. Grauerholz, Liz. 1999. “Creating and Teaching WritingIntensive Courses.” Teaching Sociology 27(4):310-23. Grauerholz, Liz and Sharon Bouma-Holtrop. 2003. “Exploring Critical Sociological Thinking.” Teaching Sociology 31(4):485-96. Grauerholz, Elizabeth and Gina M. Scuteri. 1989. “Learning to Role-Take: A Teaching Technique to Enhance Awareness of the ‘Other.’” Teaching Sociology 17(4):480-83. Green, Charles S., III and Hadley G. Klug. 1990. “Teaching Critical Thinking and Writing through Debates: An Experimental Evaluation.” Teaching Sociology 18(4):462-71. Griffin, C.W. 1983. “A Process to Critical Thinking: Using Writing to Teach Many Disciplines.” Improving College and University Teaching 31(3):121-28. Hollander, Jocelyn A. 2000. “Fear Journals: A Strategy for Teaching about the Social Consequences of Gendered Violence.” Teaching Sociology 28(3):192205. Holtzman, Mellisa. 2005. “Teaching Sociological Theory through Active Learning: The Irrigation Exercise.” Teaching Sociology 33(2):206-12. Hudd, Suzanne S., Lauren M. Sardi, and Maureen T. Lopriore. 2013. “Sociologists as Writing Instructors: Teaching Students to Think, Teaching an Emerging Skill or Both?” Teaching Sociology 41(1):32-45. Hudd, Suzanne, Robert Smart, and Andrew W. Delohery. 2011. “‘My Understanding Has Grown, My Perspective Has Switched’: Linking Informal Writing to Learning Goals.” Teaching Sociology 39(2):179-89. Hylton, Jaime and John Allen. 1993. “Setting Specific Purposes for Writing-to-Learn Assignments: Adapt-

59

Grauerholz et al. ing the Dialogue Notebook for a Human Services Course.” Teaching Sociology 21(1):68-78. Johnson, Diane Elizabeth. 2001. “Teaching for Mastery: Focus on Social Theory.” Teaching Sociology 29(2):163-180. Karcher, Barbara. 1988. “Sociology and Writing Across the Curriculum: An Adaptation of the Sociological Journal.” Teaching Sociology 16(2):168-72. Knoblauch, C.H. and Lil Brannon. 1983. “Writing as Learning through the Curriculum.” College English 45(5):465-74. Kuechler, William and Mark G. Simkin. 2003. “How Well Do Multiple Choice Tests Evaluate Student Understanding in Computer Programming Classes?” Journal of Information Systems Education 14(4):389-99. Lackey, Chad. 1994. “Social Science Fiction: Writing Sociological Short Stories to Learn about Social Issues.” Teaching Sociology 22(2):166-73. Massengill, Rebekah Peeples. 2011. “Sociological Writing as Higher-level Thinking Assignments that Cultivate the Sociological Imagination.” Teaching Sociology 39(4):371-81. McDuff, Elaine. 2012. “Collaborative Learning in an Undergraduate Theory Course: An Assessment of Goals and Outcomes.” Teaching Sociology 40(2):166-76. McKinney, Kathleen, Carla B. Howery, Kerry J. Strand, Edward L. Kain, and Catherine White Berheide. 1991. Liberal Learning and the Sociology Major Updated: Meeting the Challenge of Teaching Sociology in the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Reinertsen, Priscilla and Cyrene M. Wells. 1993. “Dialogue Journals and Critical Thinking.” Teaching Sociology 21(2):182-86. Roberts, Keith. 1993. “Toward a Sociology of Writing.” Teaching Sociology 21(4):317-24. Roth, Robin L. 1985. “Learning about Gender through Writing.” Teaching Sociology 12(3):325-38.

Schools Council (Great Britain) and, James N.. Britton. 1975. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan. Wade, Carole. 1995. “Using Writing to Develop and Assess Critical Thinking.” Teaching of Psychology 22(1):24-28. Wagenaar, Theodore. 2004. “Is There a Core in Sociology? Results from a Survey.” Teaching Sociology 32(1):1-18. Wagenaar, Theodore. 1991. “Goals for the Discipline?” Teaching Sociology 19(1):92-95. Wagenaar, Theodore. 1984. “Using Student Journals in Sociology Courses.” Teaching Sociology 11(4):419-37. Walvoord, Barbara F. and Hoke L. Smith. 1982. “Coaching the Process of Writing.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 12:3-14.

Bios Liz Grauerholz is professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida. Her current research focuses on how institutional factors shape teaching experiences, students’ consumption practices and how consumption rituals shape new mothers’ experiences, and interracial images in children’s books. Joanna Eisele is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Her teaching and research interests are in the area of gender and environmental sociology. Her current research focuses on female circumcision in Egypt. Nicole Stark received her BA from the Department of Sociology at the University of Central Florida in 2012 and plans to pursue graduate school in sociology. Her research interests are social inequality, gender, sexuality, and culture.