Writing to Learn in Upper-Division Sociology Courses: Two Case Studies

Abstract

is a far more potent tool for learning than we imagined previously. Traditionally, most sociologists have seen the value of students' writing primarily in the documentation of learning and in the communication of learning to others (Faigley and Hansen 1985). Students wrote papers and reports showing that they had already completed a process of learning, or sharing the products of their learning with their instructors or with a larger public. In this model the writing is not for the student, but for others. Because traditional thinking regarded students' writing as an end product of the learning process, by which the learning was evaluated, the writing was judged by a set of formal criteria such as style, grammar, and neatness. in this model meant the finished product, the post hoc proof that something other than writing had taken place. Recent theorizing and practice in rhetoric have led to a rethinking of writing and the learning process (e.g., Elbow 1973, 1981). Drawing on work in cognitive and intellectual development, this rethinking suggests that students' writing itself can be a very powerful tool for learning, for empowering students, and for building collaborative models for knowing (e.g., Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule 1986; Bruffee 1984; Emig 1977; Freire 1970; Fulwiler 1983; Ong 1982; Perry 1970; Piaget 1971). This paper discusses two upper-division writing-intensive courses now offered at Millsaps College (Senior Seminar in Sociological Theory and Sociology of Religion). in an upper-division course has many similarities with that in a lower-level course. We may write to develop inquiry, to generate topics and discussion, or to summarize and solidify information (see Cadwallader and Scarboro 1982). Nevertheless, there are also some important differences. Our work, part of the national Writing