When considering and narrowing fields of study for their degree, most students recognize that they must acquire, develop, and demonstrate specialized knowledge about their discipline and its practices. Writing is frequently a means by which students demonstrate that knowledge, but instruction in how to write in and for the field frequently remains outside of and distinct from the lessons students get from their own faculty. Unfortunately, treating writing as a universal, generalizable skill that can and should be taught by writing teachers—rather than field practitioners—is a disservice to students.
The ways we “do” a discipline reflect our knowledge of that discipline and, as Michael Carter (2007) argues, writing offers a concrete artifact, a "metadoing," of this connection: “particular kinds of writing are ways of doing that instantiate particular kinds of doing by giving shape to particular ways of knowing in the discipline” (389).
Throughout the semester, students in this section of CWR4B look at discourse conventions, rhetorical strategies, and disciplinary practices across the curriculum for evidence of how practitioners “do” their disciplines. Giving them a window into the “metadoings” of different fields, these examinations help students challenge the view that there’s a single model of writing that works in all contexts, for all purposes. Yet recognizing similarities and differences in the ways practitioners write is not enough—especially when universities in general, and UC Berkeley in particular, continue to teach writing outside of the disciplines.
Assuming that students want to be viewed as credible practitioners within their field(s) of study, and assuming that the ways practitioners communicate their field to different audiences reflect that credibility, students examine how to give writing—both its teaching and its practice—a more explicit, central place within each discipline so that students could learn how to write as experts in the field from those with expertise in the field itself. The research on this site represents some of the results.
The ways we “do” a discipline reflect our knowledge of that discipline and, as Michael Carter (2007) argues, writing offers a concrete artifact, a "metadoing," of this connection: “particular kinds of writing are ways of doing that instantiate particular kinds of doing by giving shape to particular ways of knowing in the discipline” (389).
Throughout the semester, students in this section of CWR4B look at discourse conventions, rhetorical strategies, and disciplinary practices across the curriculum for evidence of how practitioners “do” their disciplines. Giving them a window into the “metadoings” of different fields, these examinations help students challenge the view that there’s a single model of writing that works in all contexts, for all purposes. Yet recognizing similarities and differences in the ways practitioners write is not enough—especially when universities in general, and UC Berkeley in particular, continue to teach writing outside of the disciplines.
Assuming that students want to be viewed as credible practitioners within their field(s) of study, and assuming that the ways practitioners communicate their field to different audiences reflect that credibility, students examine how to give writing—both its teaching and its practice—a more explicit, central place within each discipline so that students could learn how to write as experts in the field from those with expertise in the field itself. The research on this site represents some of the results.