Items followed by a single asterisk are taken from the Eric database; those followed by a double asterisk are taken from the subject bibliographies prepared by the Georgia State University Writing Across the Curriculum program, available at: http://WWW.GSU.EDU/~wwwwac/.

Crosswhite, J. (1991). The dissatisfactions of rhetoric: philosophy and politics in the teaching of writing. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 21 (4), 1-16. ERIC EJ 449815.

Abstract: Shows how the teaching of writing is ineluctably embroiled in philosophical instabilities. Argues for strengthening the place of philosophy in the teaching of writing as a response to and, to some degree, resistance to the inevitable politicizing of the teaching of writing.*

Davis, D. (1987). Eight faculty members talk about student writing. College Teaching, 35 (1), 31-35. ERIC EJ 352720.

Abstract: Interviews with eight faculty members from diverse disciplines who are seriously attempting to integrate writing into their undergraduate courses revealed their attitudes about the importance of student writing, instructional purposes, assignments, class time devoted to writing-related activities, institutional rewards for these efforts, and the school administration's role.*

Fishman, S. (1997). Student writing in philosophy: a sketch of five techniques. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 69, 53-66. ERIC EJ 539558.

Abstract: Five techniques used for college writing assignments to heighten student thinking and involvement in class discussion are described: study questions; class notes; triple-entry notetaking; freewriting; and class response logs. These assignments balance personal/constructive writing and academic/critical writing to develop active learning. Examples from a philosophy course are offered.*

Ingham, Z. (Ed.). (1986). Writing across the curriculum sample assignments, 1986-1987. Eric Clearinghouse on Junior Colleges ED 296743.

Abstract: Designed for Pima Community College (Arizona) instructors, this booklet presents 50 sample writing assignments developed for 38 non-writing courses. Three types of assignments are represented: (1) short papers, which are usually one to five pages long, require few research skills, and allow students to use the instructor's feedback to produce improved papers as the course progresses, are probably the most common assignment; (2) formal papers, which are usually from 5 to 20 pages long, require a student to research and synthesize information, and are formally presented with conventional notations of references; and (3) interactive learning logs, in which students comment on and react to class notes or readings. The assignments cover a broad range of subjects, including administration of justice, anthropology, art, astronomy, business, computer science, drama, early childhood education, economics, French, history, human development education, humanities, management, mathematics, philosophy, physics, politics, psychology, public administration, reading, sign language, sociology, social services, Spanish, speech, and writing. A few examples of student writing are provided, along with instructors' grading criteria. Information on the component parts of an essay, paragraph structure, and standards of composition is appended.*

Moore, L, Peterson, L. (1983). Convention as transition: linking the advanced composition course to the college curriculum. Journal of Advanced Composition, 4, 173-87. ERIC EJ 376152.

Abstract: Suggests the concept of convention provides a basis for teaching the cross-curricular writing course. Describes an experimental freshman writing course which focused on the written discourse of five disciplines: art history, history, biology, literature, and philosophy.*

North, S. (1986). Writing in a philosophy class: Three case studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 20 (3), 225-262. ERIC EJ 343566.

Abstract: Examines the relationship between writing and learning in a college-level writing-across-the-curriculum class in philosophy. Results provide a basis for speculation about the conception of the writing/learning relationship and about the viability of further hermeneutical study of student writing.*

Soven, M. (1989). Agendas for writing in philosophy: conflicting or complementary? ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communications Skills ED 308509.

Abstract: Recent research on how students perceive the function of writing assignments and the effects of different kinds of writing assignments on learning is inconclusive. Noting that this issue clouds writing across the curriculum programs, a study sought to determine how students perceive their involvement in assignments that require them to present an accurate interpretation of a text. Writing assignments in two philosophy classes were studied, one on business ethics (25 students) and the other a senior seminar on the history of philosophy (15 students). To determine the way writing assignments were perceived by students, half the class sessions for each course were observed, a survey was administered to all of the students in both classes, student interviews were conducted, and writing assignments were examined. Results indicated that (1) formal writing assignments are not necessarily less conducive to learning than informal assignments; (2) the writing task in and of itself can provide compelling motivation to learn; (3) how students view the teacher as audience is equally as important as assignment genre; and (4) there is a need to encourage more exploratory and persuasive discourse. The survey form is attached.*

Werne, S. (1993). Taking rough drafts seriously. Teaching Philosophy, 16 (1), 47-57.

Werne describes his use of rough drafts and peer review in a philosophy course. Argues for the use of writing in philosophy courses, and describes details of how rough drafts are used: how to get students to take them seriously, what to get the peer reviewers to do, what actually happens during a rough draft work session. Summarizes students' reactions to the practice.**

Additional Resources

Carella, M. (1983). Philosophy as literacy: Teaching college students to read critically and write cogently. College Composition and Communication, 34, 57-61.

Cunningham, F. J. (May, 1985). Writing philosophy: Sequential essays and objective tests. College Composition and Communication 36,166-172.

Kent, O. T. (1987). Student journals and the goals of philosophy. In T.Fulwiler (Ed.), The Journal Book (pp. 269-277). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McCarthy, L., and Fishman, S. Boundary conversations: Conflicting ways of knowing in philosophy and interdisciplinary research. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 419-68.

Moulton, J. (1983). A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka (Ed.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (pp. 149-64). Boston: Reidel.