Local History, Local Complexities - Composition Forum 27 - First-Year Writing Curriculum at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Oct 15, 2026

This profile explains how a new WPA advances an inherited first-year writing curriculum at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette through incremental change over three years while keeping sustained stakeholder involvement. Assessment relies on two rounds of instructor surveys and three rounds of direct evaluation of student writing samples, influenced by the university’s reaccreditation process. Curriculum emphasis centers on academic writing techniques, argument structure, and research-based writing, while navigating constraints and mandated cultural diversity requirements.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Background and constraints for a new WPA

Incremental curricular change and assessment approach

First-year writing in general education and administrative dynamics

Politics, responsibilities, and job security in the jWPA role

CF 27: Local History, Local Complexities by Clancy Ratliff Page 1 of 22 Composition Forum 27, Spring 2013 [http://compositionforum.com/issue/27/](http://compositionforum.com/issue/27/) Local History, Local Complexities: The First-Year Writing Curriculum at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette [[http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=compforum](http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=compforum)] Clancy Ratliff Abstract: This profile describes a new WPA’s choice to work incrementally to assess an inherited, fledgling First-Year Writing curriculum at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and change it over a three-year period with continual stakeholder involvement. The methods used for assessment were two rounds of instructor surveys and three rounds of direct assessment of student writing samples, motivated in part by the university’s reaccreditation review. The resulting curriculum’s main areas of focus are academic writing techniques, argument structure, and research-based writing. How then should new WPAs proceed, especially if they wish to or have been invited to“revitalize,”“update,” or otherwise change a current writing program? Carefully. Very carefully. —David Smit,“Curriculum Design for First-Year Writing Programs” An untenured assistant professor, new to writing program administration, begins a job directing a first-year writing program, and the waters are somewhat turbulent. One year prior, the curriculum had been radically changed, with some faculty resistance, after twenty-five years of stasis. The writing teachers, naturally, experience confusion and frustration adapting to the new curriculum, which they bring to the new WPA. The new WPA is asked to assess the new curriculum and, if appropriate, change it, but constraints are in place. Per a pledge to a student task force supported by the university president, the writing program is honor-bound to keep the same textbooks for at least three years, to keep costs down for students. The writing program must also engage cultural diversity and international issues as mandated by the university system and Board of Regents. Soon after starting the position, the WPA is asked to conduct course-embedded assessment in preparation for review by the university's accrediting agency. What does the WPA do in the midst of these constraints and challenges? This is the scenario I faced when I came to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette in the fall of 2007. I took the position as writing program director having only received my PhD in Rhetoric and Scientific and Technical Communication one year prior, with no past experience directing or assisting in directing a writing program, and without a strong background in the subfield of writing program administration. Especially given that I was untenured, I needed to establish collegial working relationships with departmental faculty at all levels, so I wanted to mine their practical wisdom regarding the student population and their writing needs, which they knew much more deeply than I did, before making any changes to the curriculum. I couldn't make any major changes anyway, because we had to continue using the default textbooks for three more years. While getting rid of textbooks altogether might have been an option, I preferred having the apparatus that a book provides. I also had to spearhead program assessment for first-year writing, always a complex endeavor, but especially so under the circumstances. In the end, I decided to work incrementally, making small [http://compositionforum.com/issue/27/lafayette.php](http://compositionforum.com/issue/27/lafayette.php) CF 27: Local History, Local Complexities by Clancy Ratliff Page 2 of 22 changes over time, and always asking for teachers' feedback before making decisions about the program. This approach proved effective as I enacted curricular change while assuming a leadership role and navigating local context and institutional cons

FAQs

What constraints shaped the WPA’s ability to revise the curriculum?

The WPA had to keep the same textbooks for at least three years to control student costs, and the program had to engage cultural diversity and international issues mandated by the university system and Board of Regents.

How was the curriculum assessed during the three-year change period?

Assessment used two rounds of instructor surveys and three rounds of direct assessment of student writing samples, partly to support the university’s reaccreditation review.

What were the curriculum’s main areas of focus after the revisions?

The curriculum prioritized academic writing techniques, argument structure, and research-based writing.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by A glass of water