2025 Case Studies

Case Scenario #1: Templating Trouble: DEI, Oversight, and the Politics of Syllabus Sharing, Kate Pantelides

Although you provide model course materials and templates for faculty in your writing program, everyone is invited to customize their materials and ensure that it represents their own teaching philosophies and pedagogies. Your department has long required that faculty share their syllabi and course schedules with the WPA at the beginning of the semester for a “Syllabus Review.” Although past WPAs have used this as a gatekeeping mechanism, you’ve adapted the practice such that faculty meet in peer review groups at the semester’s kickoff meeting to look at each other’s materials, develop community, and share good ideas. Folks are used to the practice, and you’ve found a way to make it consistent with your administrative values. Further, faculty are required to share these materials with the department’s administrative assistant.

These practices have clear important reasons, including the following:

1. the writing program employs around 100 faculty, and every fall - between new graduate teaching assistants and a few instructors, about a third of them are new; the “Syllabus Review” helps you get a sense of who the new faculty are as well as keep an eye out for anything that’s missing or might cause problems for the faculty or students down the road;

2. every semester at least one faculty member needs to call out sick, and having their updated schedule and syllabus are so important to help both the faculty member that steps in to help and the students who need consistent instruction.

However: Your state has new “Divisive Concepts” laws that decry language that reflects attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), language that has long been in the recommended syllabus template for the program. Further federal regulations regarding DEI policies and procedures have renewed fears about who might be looking at course materials beyond the student audience. You want to ensure that you support contingent faculty in your program, model best practices in the teaching of composition in shared program documents, and demonstrate support for incoming students through your teaching materials.

Given these goals, how/might you make changes to your teaching materials and/or the “Syllabus Review”? What else might you do differently (or not)?

Case Scenario #2: Language, Bias, and Support: A WPA Response to Faculty Frustration, Sarah Snyder

A faculty colleague from another department comes to you frustrated, saying that “their students don’t speak English.”  As the WPA, what do you do?

Case Scenario #3: Responding to Faculty Reactions to Student AI Use, Sarah Snyder

A faculty member is frustrated that “all of their students are using AI to complete their assignments.” This faculty member wants to fail the entire class. As the WPA, what do you do?

Case Scenario #4: Navigating Assessment and Program Requirements, Sherri Craig

One of your long-term full-time instructors has always been a strong contributor to the writing program and demonstrates a high dedication to their students’ success. Recently, they have even won a second award for their teaching excellence. It is near the end of the semester and you learn they have adopted an anti-racist approach (1) to evaluating student work by employing a contract (2) for evaluation and assessment in their classroom.

The contract has not been vetted by you as the WPA, nor were you aware of its existence until receiving a student complaint regarding their grade (lower than they expected) and experiences in the course. Upon reviewing the grading contract, which emphasizes attendance, participation, and daily reflective assignments, you determine that the large written projects do not align with the writing program’s goals or length requirements. Additionally, through some informal investigation, you learn several other instructors and GTAs have also adopted grading contracts with similar course designs. Under pressure from the university assessment office regarding an unusual uptick in students who earn an A, and a drastic reduction in DFWI rates, as a WPA, how might you move forward?

Notes:

1. Recent decisions by your university’s governing board have determined that anti-racist, and other similar pedagogical approaches, should not be a feature of university curricular offerings.

2. Alternative grading agreements are not a supported component of your writing program (e.g. there are no training materials, vetting practices, or professional development for them) or within the model syllabus provided to faculty and GTAs.

Case Scenario #5: Bridging Perspectives: Crafting AI Policy Amid Diverging Views, Duane Roen

Colleagues in your department hold diverse views on what to do with generative AI. Some are all in, excited about the possibilities that this relatively new digital technology offers for teaching and learning. They point to Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric (using the available means of persuasion), and argue that Aristotle would support the use of AI because it is a set of available tools for writers.

Some colleagues are more cautious about using AI, but they recognize that employers are increasingly posting job ads for candidates that have expertise in using AI for a wide range of purposes. Some colleagues are opposed to any use of AI because it will undermine efforts to help students become more proficient learners, thinkers, writers, and readers. Some are opposed because generative AI makes it easier for students to engage in acts of plagiarism. Others are concerned that students will lose agency and voice as writers if they use generative AI tools. And some colleagues are opposed to AI because it requires so much electrical energy, which has negative consequences for the environment. Finally, there are some colleagues who are ambivalent about the use of AI, and they see both the opportunities and the challenges that lie ahead.

You are chairing a committee that is charged with drafting a department policy on the use of AI. How will you navigate these waters in light of the diverse perspectives noted above?