ABSTRACT
A ll writing program administrators (W PAs), whether they have direct re sponsibility for writing-across-the-curriculum (W AC) or not, need an un derstanding o f this thirty-year-old, vital subfield o f composition. W AC historian D avid Russell calls it “the m ost widespread and sustained reform m ovem ent in cross-curricular writing instruction” in U.S. higher education (Writing 272). Defining W AC, though, is easier said than done. A primary characteristic o f W AC is its idiosyncrasy. A s Chris Thaiss points out, “C o n sciously or not, W AC theorists and program leaders have encouraged alm ost unlimited variety in terms o f what counts as writing and how it is evalu ated.. .. [T ]his lack o f close definition is largely responsible for the growth o f W A C program s.... [allow ing, even encouraging, different parts o f a faculty to m aintain divergent, often conflicting goals . . . ” (“Theory in W A C ,”).
