English 1900: A Writing (and Writing Program) Laboratory - Course Description and Institutional Context

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by kopisore

English 1900: Advanced Strategies of Rhetoric and Research is introduced as a first-year writing course built on a scaffolded, semesterlong project where students complete multiple research-engaged assignments, a major exploratory research task, a statement of purpose rooted in an authentic rhetorical situation, a multimodal argument with analysis, and a final reflection. The writing program reframes writing as a laboratory for thinking rather than only delivering argumentative products, motivated by institutional and staffing expectations. The paper then situates the course within Saint Louis University’s curricular structure and the broader Jesuit educational tradition, explaining how earlier research-driven assignments became too dense and prompted redesign.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Course Description

Institutional Context

University structure and course offering

Jesuit educational tradition and writing requirement

Prior syllabus and reasons for redesign

English 1900: A Writing (and Writing Program) Laboratory Laura Hardin Marshall and Paul Lynch Course Description In manyways,“English 1900: Advanced Strategies of Rhetoric and Research”is a familiar first year writing course designed for the familiar curricular purpose, which White, Eliot, and Peckham have memorably named “inoculation” (17) . The Saint Louis University course catalog description promises students will study “complex structures of language including its logical and persuasive possibilities” (“Spring 2019 Course Descriptions”) . In the College of Arts and Sciences, where English 1900 meets the “Foundations of Discourse” requirement, the course is said to lead students “to express ideas coherently, to work with a variety of research methods, and to construct effective arguments using appropriate evidence”(Saint Louis University,“Arts and Sciences”). Despite this boilerplate, the Writing Program (WP) has striven to create a course that draws on a richer, disciplinary understanding of writing and rhetoric. The standard course structure, from which instructors are asked to fashion their own syllabi, asks students to pursue a scaffolded semesterlong project. In that project, students produce the following: 1) several short, research-engaged writing assignments; 2) a major exploratory research assignment; 3) a statement of purpose that addresses (or invokes) an authentic rhetorical situation; 4) a multimodal argument that responds to that situation (accompanied by an analysis and explanation of the student’s rhetorical choices); and 5) a final reflection on the student’s work in the course. As they pursue these assignments, which result in 20-25 pages of writing, students continually rethink and revise their projects and the position(s) they might take. They are encouraged not just to learn but also to change their minds. Our innovation in these assignments comes from reconceiving writing asthe laboratory in which thinking occurs rather than the delivery system of the results of thinking (i.e., the familiar argumentative product) . Our approach grew as a response to a complex set of expectations, including the local curricular expectations (described above), current disciplinary expectations (described later in our theoretical rationale), and departmental staffing changes (namely, the entrance of literature faculty into the writing course rotation) . Because managing these expectations presented challenges for both the WP administrator (WPA) and instructors, this essay is written from the dual perspective of both: Paul (WPA) and Laura (the graduate instructor whose course is the essay’s ultimate focus) . Laura also will discuss how her approach to the course Composition Studies 48.3 (2020): 83–102 implemented and expanded upon the course’s innovations in order to respond to 1) programmatic assessment, 2) feedback from her colleagues across the WP, and 3) her own experiences teaching two sections of English 1900 in the 2017-2018 academic year. Institutional Context The current iteration of English 1900 stems from three levels of institutional context: the university, the WP, and the Department of English. All three played a role in shaping the course innovations we report in this essay. In most ways, Saint Louis University (SLU) is a typical modern university. Classified as a “high research activity” institution by Carnegie, it has 13,000 students, including 8,000 undergraduates. SLU features twelve colleges and schools, each with a distinct undergraduate core (although the university is currently working toward a universal core, set to be piloted in academic year 2021-22) . English 1900 is one of the few courses that traverses those curricula, and to meet that need, the WP offers 45-50 sections of English 1900 per year, capped at 20 students. At a Jesuit university like SLU, the fact that English 1900 is the only universally required writing course should be surprising, even shocking.1 When the Jes

FAQs

What major components does the English 1900 semester project include?

Students complete several short research-engaged writings, a major exploratory research assignment, a statement of purpose tied to an authentic rhetorical situation, a multimodal argument with an accompanying analysis, and a final course reflection.

How does the writing program’s approach redefine the purpose of writing?

It treats writing as a laboratory where thinking happens, emphasizing inquiry, revision, and students’ willingness to rethink their positions rather than focusing only on producing an argumentative end product.

Why was the course redesigned from its earlier syllabus structure?

Informal feedback indicated the earlier two major research assignments plus the multimodal project made the syllabus overstuffed, leading instructors to rush or omit items they considered important.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by kopisore