PAB: The Major Question of First-Year Writing
Fraizer, Dan. “First Steps Beyond First Year: Coaching Transfer After FYC.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, Vol. 33, No. 3, Spring 2010, 24-57. Council of Writing Program Administrators. PDF. 27 September 2016.
In Fraizer’s study on the aftermath of the FYC, he first situated his own study via composition or composition-based scholarship, presenting a varied picture as to how much research supports the idea that the general writing skills instruction is ineffective via research from composition scholars, such as Wardles and Downs, Russell, Freedman, and Crowley. In citing Russell, Fraizer writes, “The argument that general writing skills instruction teaches students a “universal educated discourse” is discredited as myth, since aside from what Russell calls basic “scribal skills,” every discipline (and the writing genres within that discipline) has its own expectations of what is effective or necessary” (36). After introducing his research, Fraizer launches into his study of eight students in order see if their introductory writing courses were enough preparation for other academic writing situations. What he discovered was that some of these students needed further assistance, which he provided in the form of “bridging strategies, such genre analyses and reflections. He writes that “Facilitating awareness of writing expectations and strategies through genre analysis and reflection may help some students to see the big picture. This study raises the question of when and where to do that” (51). However, Fraizer, understands the limitations of creating activity systems that are conducive to effectively implementing the concept of transfer, including the inability of hiring experts in the field. Citing Grego and Thompson, he advocates for a third space, a Writing Studio, where students can best see how writing is done as it happens, which he saw to be effective in enhancing students’ writing capabilities.
This source is helpful in understanding the purpose of an FYC course in that the strategy of transfer and writing about writing are addressed and challenged. Fraizer’s study, though a small sample, shows the widely-known limitations of FYC. By studying the aftermath of WaW FYCs, Fraizer’s study slightly tempers Wardle and Downs’ original WaW pedagogical model, showing how this model doesn’t necessarily solve the conundrum within FYCs. Because Fraizer worked first-hand with the students he was coaching, his article does bring a level of gravitas to this ongoing debate/question of the purpose of FYCs. However, because he was personally involved, there is a certain level of subjectivity to his study. However, his recommendations are interesting (genre analysis, process reflection, and discourse communities), though likewise as limiting as WaW and transfer.
What Fraizer does is enter the ongoing debate/questioning as to the purpose of FYC and what it should cover; however, the question remains. Despite the lack of a defined new pedagogical model (he merely recommends a new activity system), this study does show me the importance of this debate to the composition field and how much work is still needed. One aspect of this study I would be interested to learn is how would Fraizer view his study in light of Wardle and Downs’ revision of the work he addresses? Would his views on WaW change due to their revision or would he still come to the same conclusion?
Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. “Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Revisiting Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions Five Years On.” Composition Forum 27, Spring 2013. Web. 27 September 2016.
This article was written in response to the authors’ 2007 article on the purpose of FYC courses, entitled “Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions.” They initially argued that the introductory course(s) are not sufficient to teach students how to write. However, these courses can serve as introductions to writing in college. Students should be taught how to face the various writing challenges they may face
http://wac.appstate.edu/wawinstitute
throughout their college careers. The authors also contended in 2007 that this goal “requires prepared and trained teachers—preparation and training that cannot be demanded of low-paid, disrespected, last-minute hires” (Wardle and Downs). They also contended that composition courses should define the field, as well as professionalize those who teach these courses. In this response, Wardle and Downs make corrections to their initial research, corrections made via increases experienced in the classroom. Some of these corrections include acknowledging the efforts and diverse curricula of those with and without graduate training in writing instruction, as these instructors work towards implementing “writing about writing.” In order to accomplish this, a general set of outcomes and practices need to be utilized, with an emphasis on sharing the field’s knowledge, which research shows aids student writers. “Put another way, we see our field as having both declarative and procedural knowledge about writing that can and should be conveyed directly to students” so, why not share this knowledge in FYC/gen-ed writing courses? This involves establishing what Meyer and Land call ” threshold concepts,” or the idea of a portal that opens up the disciplinary knowledge.
Within this article, Wardle and Downs present quite a number of interesting points, especially in terms of revising their research. This makes the article particularly useful as it relates to seeing how much this field has grown and continues to grow. It is helpful to see that scholars revisit their past ideas as they learn more. Despite this article being a response to past criticism, it is objective in its approach to the topic, adequately addressing the criticism while clarifying previous problematic statements and assertions. The goal of the source seems to be clarifying their research in order for their original assertions be better understood, while acknowledging and revising any controversial past claims.
As I continue researching composition studies– both its path and its trajectory– sources like these help me understand the central question at the heart of this field: what is the purpose of first-year, or introductory, writing courses? The fact that Wardle and Downs made revisions to their research helps me see the ongoing efforts in the field to answer the central question. It also helps me understand the different perspectives regarding FYC’s purpose and where the scholarship and, possibly, institutions are headed. Recently, I’ve started questioning what I was supposed to be teaching in my FYCs, its purpose, and effectiveness. I’m reminded of Luke’s “The Trouble With English,” where he discusses “rais[ing] critical questions about the direction of our field and profession, questions without definitive answers” (85). I now understand my line of questioning is at the center of the FYC debate. However, more importantly, I now understand that there is research to help provide me guidance on this issue and that I’m not alone in my questioning.
Work Cited
Luke, Allan. “At Last: The Trouble with English.” Research in the Teaching of English, Vol 39, No. 1, August 2004, 85-95. National Council of Teachers of English. Web. 28 September 2016.
History of First-Year Composition
First-year composition, or introductory composition, first emerged in 1885 at Harvard University after implementing a writing component to its 1874 entrance exam, which consisted of a writing prompt selected by faculty; the results were dismal. According to Crowley, Harvard’s purpose for instituting this
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kang/files/1.png?m=1466324143
course was to “produce an educated person” (9) and to address the “illiteracy of American boys” (Coxwell-Tague and Lunsford xiii). [Click here to see the 1869 Harvard entrance exam.] This composition course was meant to be temporary; however, it was soon adopted by other institutions fifteen years later. According to McComiskey, quoting Connors, “during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a “literacy crisis” (caused by loose admissions policies resulting from the Morrill Act) led to the requirement of first-year composition” (9). This course soon became a required course at universities and colleges (private and public alike) throughout the nation.
However, despite being seen as an important element to a university education, because scholarship in the field wasn’t taken seriously, the teaching of first-year composition/introductory composition became relegated to adjunct faculty and graduate students beginning in the 1940s, especially after the influx of post-war enrollment with the introduction of the G.I. Bill. Along with minimal scholarship, another issue the composition course had to endure was playing second fiddle to literature, which continued to dominate English departments well into the 20th century, although the importance of literature waxed and waned. In spite of its low status within English Studies, composition, especially first-year composition, continues to be the lifeblood of English departments, sustaining the department through any changes.
It was against this backdrop that composition specialists rallied against the reductive and overly simplistic view of composition courses, which primarily focused on grammar, sentence mechanics, and essay structure. During the 1930’s and 40’s, linguists led the charge for changes. According to Coxwell-Teague and Lunsford, the NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English), founded in 1911, hosted a small meeting in 1947 which addressed “the teaching of freshman composition and communication” (xiv). During the 1960’s, rhetoric became merged with composition, in regards to discourse and pedagogy. According to Lauer, it was at the 1968 annual Conference on College Composition and Communication that scholars, such as Robert Gorrell, saw the importance of rhetoric within composition. In fact, other scholars saw “that rhetoric had benefits for teaching composition” (Lauer 108). The 1960’s continued to be pivotal to the development of scholarship surrounding composition courses with the Dartmouth Conference in the 1960’s, which focused on the role of literature in the classroom (a nod to the continued importance of literature in English departments), the importance of voice in student writing (perpetuated by such scholars as Gordon Rohman and Albert Wlecke, and even the idea that the typical model of writing–exposition, description, narration, and argumentation– “dubbed “EDNA” by Sharon Crowley” (Lauer 115), was inadequate to composition pedagogy.
The growing attention to composition courses led to other major scholarly efforts during the 1970’s and 80’s. These scholarly efforts included conferences, journals, and studies. During the 1970’s, linguists began the “Students Rights” movement to give credence to students’ own languages (which was revisited in the 1990’s in regards to Ebonics), the Summer Rhetoric Seminars and NEH Composition/Rhetoric Seminars focused on composition pedagogy, and the “social turn,” which argued for the social construct of knowledge. Towards the end of the 80’s, Dr. Louise Wetherbee Phelps called the study of rhetoric and composition a “human science” (Lauer 110), which gives further credence as to the complex nature of teaching composition courses and the various pedagogies which scholars and teachers draw upon.
The twenty-first century brings with it new challenges to first-year composition, such as continued outside influence (other departments, administration, and even community and legislative interference), along with revisiting of past concepts resulting in contention regarding effective pedagogy. Technology has also brought with it the added layer of composing in a digital space and an increase in online composition courses, further adding a new complexity to an already complex discipline. However, conferences such as the New London Group at the beginning of the 21st century, focusing on a sociological and education-based approach to writing, demonstrates the continued worldwide effort towards improving the purpose, scope, and pedagogy of first-year composition.
Currently, first-year composition has a wide range of scholarship from which to draw upon and has firmly established itself as a sub-discipline within Rhetoric and Composition. With this in mind, composition’s multimodality and interdisciplinarity make it indispensable to English departments and institutions alike, especially as WAC and WID begin to take traction at some institutions.
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon. “Composition in the University.” Composition in the University Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh, 1998. Print. 1-18.
Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford. “Setting the Table: Composition in the Last Half of the Twentieth Century.” First-Year Composition From Theory to Practice. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press, 2014. PDF. xiii-xxvii.
Lauer, Janice M. “Rhetoric and Composition.” English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Bruce McComiskey, ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print. 106-152.
McComiskey, Bruce. “Introduction.” English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s).Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print. 1-65.
[Top]PAB: History of First-Year Composition
WPA Wordcloud from https://deduvick.wordpress.com/
Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford. “Setting the Table: Composition in the Last Half of the Twentieth Century.” First-Year Composition From Theory to Practice. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press, 2014. PDF. xiii-xxvii.
In the introduction to their text, First-Year Composition From Theory to Practice, Coxwell-Teague and Lunsford explore the “moments” that they found most helpful in the current development and amalgamation of college writing. These moments include the inception of a composition course all the way to the current manner in which the teaching of composition may change in the future. According to the authors, composition got its start at Harvard, where in 1874 a written entrance exam was implemented. Due to perceived weaknesses in the quality of writing, a composition course was added in 1885. However, this was meant to be a temporary fix. In quoting Connors, the author states the original purpose was to fix “what some saw as the “illiteracy of American boys”” (xiii). Despite the intended temporariness of this course, composition courses spread to other institutions within fifteen years. The main focus of these courses remained the same from the 1880’s to the middle of the twentieth century: the focus on grammar, sentence mechanics, and essay structure. However, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, linguists began to rail against this reductiveness. With the formation of the NTCE (National Council of Teachers of English) in 1911, writing teachers found a forum for expressing their interests and ideas about first-year teaching. According to the authors, “In the 1947 meeting of NCTE, a small group of teachers formed an interest group around the teaching of freshman composition and communication” (xiv). Other important moments in composition and writing studies include the Dartmouth Conference in the 1960’s (focusing on the role of literature in the classroom), the “Students Rights” movement in the 1970’s (a push by linguists for students to adopt their own language;revisited again the 1990’s), the Summer Rhetoric Seminars and NEH Composition/Rhetoric Seminars of the 1970’s and 1980’s (focusing on composition pedagogy), and the New London Group at the beginning of the 21st century (a sociological and education-based approach to writing). What these different movements show is a concerted worldwide effort to improve upon first-year writing: its purpose, scope, and pedagogy.
This source is the introduction for this text and really provides a useful overview of how first-year writing and college composition grew and developed over time. It works well with my other source since it adds more information and focuses on different movements that contributed to the creation and alterations of first-year writing courses. The objective nature of this source provides a solid framework over the forces influencing first-year writing today. The inclusion of more recent developments in the scholarship and focus of first-year writing paint the picture of an ever-evolving subfield, while also showing the difficulties the field experiences.
Since I am studying first-year writing within composition studies, this source really added to my understanding of the history of this subgenre and its original purpose. I was surprised to see that first-year writing requirements have been around since the late 19th century, especially considering that most of the scholarship I’ve encountered makes FYCs out to be a much newer addition to the academy. I can also see where Fulkerson’s assertion regarding how often the focus of composition courses change every ten years, though the shift to “preparation for “the” academic discourse community” (654) appears to harken back to the original purpose of composition programs in the first half of the twentieth century.
Crowley, Sharon. “Composition in the University.” Composition in the University Historical and Polemical Essays.Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh, 1998. Print. 1-18.
In the introduction to Composition in the University Historical and Polemical Essays , Crowley outlines the history of composition studies at the university level, including First-Year Composition, as it relates to the English discipline before ultimately making the argument against the universal composition requirement due to its problematic nature within the English Department scholarly hierarchy. By first situating the chapter within the interdependent, though strained, relationship between literary studies and composition, Crowley addresses the status of first-year composition within English Departments (its beginnings at Harvard in the late nineteenth century), including how its teaching became relegated to graduate students and adjunct faculty in the 1950’s and 1960’s due to the rise in post-war enrollment; however, currently, at universities and colleges across the nation, FYC is taught by a combination of full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and graduate students, depending on the size and scope of individual programs. Overall, according to Crowley, “By any measure, required first-year composition uses enormous resources and takes up large chunks of student and teacher time. Despite this, university faculty do not write or talk much about composition, unless it is to complain about the lack of student literacy” (1). In terms of curriculum and influence, the curriculum tends to be impacted by forces outside of composition studies, such as university/college administration and even other departments with the expectation that FYC should teach students how to write for all disciplines. Ultimately, Crowley is against the idea of the universal requirement of the composition course as it provides “full-time faculty with a firm institutional base from which to operate an academic empire” (18). It is Crowley’s hope that composition specialists, in asserting composition as a field, will not follow the same pattern.
This source helps provide aspects of the conversation surrounding composition studies and first-year writing, in particular. The information regarding the forces affecting composition helped to situate the precarious nature of this field, especially for the subgenre of first-year writing. This source also provides a different vantage point in which first-year composition is situated (should it be included in composition studies?) by including the rivalry and interdependence between composition and literature in terms of the hierarchy between the two. Though there is a slightly biased-sounding tone in regards to composition being taught by adjuncts due to first-year writing scholarship not being taken seriously, this source does highlight the struggle composition studies faces. Ultimately, the goal seems to be to expose the difficulties of this field, despite the fact that it is indispensable and aids in the continued existence of English Departments.
Within the subgenre of first-year composition, this chapter provides perspective in understanding the maligned nature of composition courses. Understanding how the composition course was meant to “produce an educated person” (9), this explains why so much is asked of first-year writing. This restrictive attitude is similar in idea of Newman’s idealized university, where only the best collude. In terms of my own research regarding first-year writing/composition courses, this source added the necessary depth of understanding the scholarship of the field and its growth as a discipline.
Work Cited
Fulkerson, Richard. “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” College Composition and Communication 56.4 (2005): 654-87. Web. 15 September 2016.
[Top]
Hello world!
Welcome to my WordPress blog, where you get to see my transition into a fine English scholar. Enjoy!
[Top]