If you’re writing a grant proposal, developing a curriculum, or orchestrating an assessment, you’ve likely come across the term “high-impact learning.” In fact, you probably want to work that term, one of the buzz words of the moment in higher education, into your narrative. I recently heard a claim that a course that incorporates writing, teamwork, and collaborative projects was “high-impact.” Well, not necessarily. It’s important to consider what the term really means before claiming it.
The very helpful LEAP definition (Association of American College and Universities) provides a list of “high-impact practices that educational research suggests increase rates of student retention and student engagement,” which includes “writing-intensive courses.” A look at the blurb for writing-intensive courses will explain, to those still wondering, some of the reasons feedback and instruction are integral to W and C courses:
Writing-Intensive Courses
These courses emphasize writing at all levels of instruction and across the curriculum, including final-year projects. Students are encouraged to produce and revise various forms of writing for different audiences in different disciplines. The effectiveness of this repeated practice “across the curriculum” has led to parallel efforts in such areas as quantitative reasoning, oral communication, information literacy, and, on some campuses, ethical inquiry. (LEAP, High-Impact Practices, August 2012)
In other words, merely including writing in a course does not make it it high-impact. It has to be “in different disciplines” and “across the curriculum.” Notice , too, that although they do not include “oral communication-intensive courses” (our C courses at Texas A&M University) in the list, they do refer to it in the description as a “parallel effort.”
LEAP is actually conflating, a least somewhat, two parallel movements in writing instruction, (1) writing across the curriculum; and (2) writing in the disciplines. The latter usually employs “writing-intensive” courses with a focus on learning to write for a very specific disciplinary audience. At any rate, LEAP makes a highly significant, and I think defensible claim: to produce good writers, students need to practice writing often and for different audiences, in different genres.
The LEAP definition exposes a potential weakness in the Texas A&M writing- and speaking-intensive program. Specifically, if a department has lessened core curriculum communication requirements because they added W and/or C courses into two other courses, or if they do not map their curriculum to make sure writing (and/or public speaking) occurs at different levels and for different audiences, their communication program will not be high-impact. To be high-impact , a curriculum must include “writing [or public speaking] at all levels of instruction and across the curriculum.” Practice, practice, practice, followed by feedback and more feedback.
The revised core curriculum includes a great many more opportunities for students to practice and develop written and oral communication skills. Courses in all eight foundational component areas are required to include a communications component. That means courses in Communication; Mathematics; Life and Physical Sciences; Language, Philosophy, and Culture; Creative Arts; American History; Government/Political Science; and Social and Behavioral Science will all include communication. We should make sure that we really do include meaningful opportunities for students to communicate in these courses. Yes, communication can take forms other than writing or speaking. Students can create a graph or chart, do a drawing, or even perform a dance. But if we expect to improve communication skills significantly, we have to require more.
If we just add in some writing or public speaking, or define communication too broadly so that anything fits, without also adding in other elements, we won’t be making much of a dent in our students’ communicative competence. Communication components in core courses should include opportunities for formative feedback (feedback received before the final product is graded) and for revision. They should include some instruction (at least written prompts, rubrics to clarify assignment parameters, and models). And they should require students to actually say or write something about that graph or that dance, to be able to discuss or reflect on what they have produced and what it communicates.
We have an opportunity to improve undergraduate education radically. It cannot be done by a sole instructor working on a single syllabus. We need to work collaboratively and get a top down look at our curriculum. The Center for Teaching Excellence can help with curriculum mapping, and the University Writing Center can help with writing and speaking instruction and assessment. Let’s get started.