The Source of Our Ethos - Using Evidence-Based Practices to Affect a Program-Wide Shift from “I Think” to “We Know”

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by awa

This program profile examines Oakland University’s first-year writing program and how contingent faculty engagement in research, assessment, and program development drives improvements in classroom instruction and enables a full first-year curriculum redesign. The authors present an inclusive faculty model for professional learning that helps instructors contribute to disciplinary conversations on teaching writing, supporting a shift from personal beliefs about instruction (“I think”) to collaboratively tested best practices (“we know”).

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Composition Forum 32, Fall 2015

The Source of Our Ethos: Using Evidence-Based Practices to Affect a Program-Wide Shift from “I Think” to “We Know”

Current Issue From the Editors Weblog Editorial Board Editorial Policy Submissions Archives Accessibility Search Composition Forum 32, Fall 2015 The Source of Our Ethos: Using Evidence-Based Practices to Affect a Program-Wide Shift from “I Think” to “We Know” Elizabeth G. Allan, Dana Lynn Driscoll, D.R. Hammontree, Marshall Kitchens, and Lori Ostergaard Abstract: This program profile demonstrates how the first-year writing program at Oakland University has engaged contingent faculty in research, assessment, and program development over the years, employing evidence-based practices to improve individual classroom instruction and to redesign the entire first-year curriculum. The authors describe their efforts to develop an inclusive model for research and professional development, a model that seeks to empower the faculty to join disciplinary conversations about the teaching of writing. Overall, the profile contributes to existing scholarship on large college writing programs by illustrating how faculty may collaborate to develop and assess curricula, to conduct and publish research, and to build a program that shifts the conversation from what individual instructors may believe about writing instruction (“I think”) to what the department may collaboratively know about best practices (“we know”) . Not long ago, one of our contingent first-year writing (FYW) instructors was given an official warning for ignoring our department’s long-standing prohibition against direct instruction in standardized English grammar. When challenged on her pedagogical practices, this instructor dismissed our Writing Program Administrator’s (WPA’s) invocation of decades of research into the inefficacy of decontextualized grammatical instruction. Despite our program-wide focus on rhetorical instruction and evidence-based practices, this instructor’s classroom practices were based on her opinion that direct grammar instruction was important for her students. Cases like this one, familiar for many WPAs, illustrate a systemic issue in FYW that pits an instructor’s uninformed good intentions and assumptions about writing against what research leads us to know about what works best for students in the FYW classroom. As this anecdote about an “all about grammar” instructor suggests, writing programs like ours may sometimes struggle with faculty reliance on lore and on those “false, harmful, simplistic, and limiting” tales (Johanek 87) about what works—“for me”—in the writing classroom. We maintain that evidence-based practices—not just instinct or opinion—should shape our writing program because, “if we continue to rely on belief [ ...] we do no better to support a case for” our FYW practices “than what most detractors to do support cases against them”(Anson 11) . The larger implication of evidence-based practices, both for the field and for writing programs, is to not fight “belief with belief” but to make certain that what works is that which can be tested via a “culture of research”(Anson 31- 32) . In this profile of our first-year writing program at Oakland University (OU), we demonstrate how a program-wide emphasis on research can help to professionalize and unite our faculty. Ultimately, we would like to do more than have contingent instructors only acquiesce begrudgingly to approved methods. Such acquiescence may lead to frustration if our contingent faculty are unaware of established research in writing studies because they either rely on lore or are specialists from related fields (e.g. , literature, linguistics) or broadly connected fields (e.g. , education) who lack a specific background in writing pedagogy. These instructors may also rely on generalized attitudes about writing expectations that are further complicated by their own field’s assumptions and lore about writing pedagogy. Such approaches may exclude process, genre theory, and rhetoric; instead, they may assume general writing skills instruction: the idea that writi

FAQs

What problem does the profile highlight about faculty teaching practices in first-year writing?

It describes how some instructors rely on opinion or “lore,” such as valuing direct standardized grammar instruction despite evidence against decontextualized grammar teaching.

How does the program aim to change conversations about writing instruction?

It seeks to move from individual beliefs (“I think”) to collaboratively known and assessable best practices (“we know”) through research and assessment.

What two threads does the program’s approach involve?

Faculty development and active research in the program, with scholarly assessment and research tightly connected to guide improvement.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by awa