That dreaded writing course

I always suspected undergrads weren't thrilled about the required first-year writing course. Many dreaded it, lamenting that writing was "never their thing," professor expectations were unrealistic, and the course was a waste of time. As a humanities student, I didn't struggle as much (though science courses humbled me!), so I initially thought some were overreacting. My time at the writing centre changed that.

Starting my master's in linguistics, I tutored students to improve their writing. Often, I was a last resort for instructors too busy or unequipped to deal with the students' writing. I became known for my patience, working with students over multiple sessions until their writing was at least passable. Soon, students would arrive saying, "I'm here to see Clive." One student stands out.

She was a management studies or finance major working at a campus bank. She'd completed all degree requirements except the communication course, which she was taking for the third time. Frustrated, she wondered how she'd passed other essay-based courses but couldn't pass this one. Her writing samples revealed why.

Sentences stood side-by-side like strangers, adjectives wandered far from their nouns, verbs defiantly clashed with subjects, and arguments were often obscured by illogical premises. Rescuing her writing skills would take considerable time and effort.

What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

Academic writing courses aim to teach students academic communication, critical engagement with other authors' views, and research skills. These are valuable skills, but the question is: must they all be crammed into one course and assessed solely through the traditional essay?

Academic communication involves understanding disciplinary jargon, structuring arguments logically, and presenting evidence effectively. Critical engagement requires analyzing arguments, identifying biases, and formulating thoughtful responses. Research skills encompass finding, evaluating, synthesizing, and citing information from various sources.

While these skills are interconnected, they don't necessarily need to be taught and assessed simultaneously. Perhaps a tiered approach, focusing on specific skills in different courses, would be more effective. For example, one course could emphasize research and source integration, culminating in a literature review. Another could focus on argumentation and analysis, culminating in a persuasive essay.

The traditional essay, while valuable, isn't the only way to assess these skills. I've already expressed my reservations with the effectiveness of the long form essay in a previous blogpost and this article on Researchgate. Other formats, such as presentations, debates, or even creative projects, could offer students different avenues to demonstrate their understanding and abilities. Exploring alternative assessment methods could make writing courses less daunting and more engaging, ultimately leading to better learning outcomes. A move away from the traditional essay would also provide students with the opportunity to develop a wider variety of communication skills that will be useful to them in their future careers.

A Barrier or a Bridge?

Why do students perceive these courses as barriers rather than bridges to their chosen fields? A common complaint is that the level of writing required in foundational academic writing courses is irrelevant to their future careers. Students in STEM fields, for example, might argue that their professional writing will primarily consist of concise reports, technical manuals, or code documentation, not lengthy analytical essays. They see the emphasis on literary analysis or rhetorical theory as an unnecessary hurdle, diverting time and energy from what they deem truly essential for their success.

This perception can lead to two problematic outcomes. Some students may dismiss the writing course entirely, viewing it as a mere formality. They might aim for the minimum passing grade, prioritizing their efforts in courses they consider more relevant to their career goals. This approach not only undermines the potential benefits of the writing course but also reinforces the notion that communication skills are secondary to technical expertise.

Other students, perhaps those more conscientious or driven by academic achievement, take the opposite tack. They treat the writing course like any other course, focusing on maximizing their grade point average (GPA). Their primary concern becomes achieving a high mark, often at the expense of genuine engagement with the material. They may meticulously follow rubrics, memorize stylistic rules, and mercilessly haggle with professors to boost their grade, but they may not internalize the underlying principles of effective communication.

In both cases, the true purpose of the writing course—to equip students with the ability to communicate effectively in their chosen disciplines and beyond—is missed. Whether students dismiss the course as irrelevant or treat it as a GPA booster, they fail to recognize the transferable value of strong writing skills. The ability to articulate complex ideas clearly, persuasively, and concisely is essential in virtually any profession, even those that appear to prioritize technical skills. A well-crafted email, a compelling presentation, or a persuasive grant proposal can make all the difference in a competitive job market. Perhaps if we can re-frame the purpose of the course to reflect this reality, students will be more receptive to the lessons being taught.

That struggling student at the writing centre eventually passed the foundational writing course—third time's the charm. She diligently attended our sessions and put in the extra work. Looking back, I wonder if it was all worth it. Did she ever translate those essay skills into something useful in her personal or professional life? Could we have helped her without simply inflating her grade or requiring her to repeat the course three times? One thing's for sure: she was appreciative. Whenever I visited the bank while she was on duty, I never had to wait in line again.