Every morning, I receive a selection of articles to read through the online Academica daily digest. I generally scan the headlines, reading the summaries and typically not much more. However, a couple of weeks ago, a headline caught my eye. Inside Higher Ed had posted an article by Carl Straumsheim announcing the release of the “National Census of Writing”.

The timing was notable. I was just going through the process of critiquing the Fernsten and Reda article, “Helping Students Meet the Challenges of Academic Writing”, primarily based on their reliance on anecdotal evidence and their belief that the support of writing development can be done in a cross-disciplinary setting by faculty without training in writing pedagogy. My concluding observation from my critical review was that Fernsten and Reda presented a theory worth further – empirical – exploration.  Alas – further exploration has been done!

The census administrators, Jill Gladstein and Brandon Fralix, have chosen to present the collected data as a resource, rather than a high-level summary. Their goal is to support “an administrator who needs to make a case for his or her writing program or a researcher looking for a simple data point” (Straumsheim).  I’ll admit that I have not reviewed the results in their entirety. However, I read the highlights presented in the article and found the consistencies between the focus of the census and the shortcomings of Fernsten and Reda’s article, remarkable. For example, the census stems from an acknowledgement that there has been a long-standing dependence on anecdotal evidence to inform decisions around the administration of writing programs. It seems as though Fernsten and Reda are not the only researchers of writing pedagogy to face the challenge of gathering data to support their theories!

Of the highlights presented, I found it most interesting that the census allows for a closer review of resources at “historically black colleges and universities (HCBUs)” (Straumsheim), which showed that this group of institutions is generally further behind in writing supports than those of their peers outside of this classification. Additionally, it was noted that the field is lacking in shared terminology. Both of these points highlight a need for a more universal approach to the development of writing programs, supports and resourcing. However, how can this case be made without evidence to support the claim? I see great potential for writing educators in the American academic setting, thanks to this work by Gladstein and Fralix.

Despite the significant logistical challenges of collecting valuable data in this field, the “National Census of Writing” gives us hope that progress is being made. Perhaps this collection of data will set an important precedent, inspiring researchers and educators to prioritize the collection of empirical data to support their theories, allowing for greater traction amongst advocates. This is likely to result in an increase in resourcing opportunities. Despite Fernsten and Reda's reliance on anecdotal evidence, their ideas were sound, backed up by theoretical research and years of experience.  I hope that the critical foundation work done by educators like these authors will be reviewed against the data presented in the census, and perhaps inspire further, more focused empirical exploration. 

Works Cited

Fernsten, Linda A., and Mary Reda. "Helping Students Meet the Challenges of Academic Writing." Teaching in Higher Education 16.2 (2011): 171-82. Web.

Gladstein, Jill, and Brandon Fralix. "National Census of Writing." National Census of Writing. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Straumsheim, Carl. "National Census of Writing Releases Survey Results." Inside Higher Ed. N.p., 20 Oct. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.