PAB 4: Theories and Methods
Bawarshi, Anis. “The Genre Function.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 3, Jan., 2000, pp. 335-360.
In this article, Bawarshi utilizes a study to explore the role of genre in creating texts, their contexts, and the identities of their writers and those who are written about. In this study, Bawarshi addresses both literary and nonliterary writers along with literary and nonliterary works. As the author states, studies on genre
https://english.washington.edu/people/anis-bawarshi
have targeted the “reconceptualization of genre and its role in the production and interpretation of texts and culture” (335). In other words, work in genre has been ongoing for many years with functional and applied linguistics, communication studies, education, and rhetoric/composition taking the lead on this study. Genre is described as being an exploratory exercise instead of merely descriptive. It can be used beyond literature in that it addresses how “communicants and their contexts are in part functions of the genres they write” (335). Scholarship on genre has primarily been undertaken outside of literary studies, with genre studies possibly linking the entirety of English Studies via a rhetorical standpoint. Bawashi examines Foucault’s “author-function” to argue how genre can serve the same function: it is constitutive instead of regulative. Genre reproduces the situations to which it responds. The article then examines several rhetorical situations, such as Washington’s state of the union address and a doctor’s office visit to demonstrate how genre works in these situations. Bawashi also reviews genre in relation to lit studies, social semiotics (speech communications), and the constitution of social identity, arguing how genre is a part of our “typified rhetorical reality” (357). Ultimately, Bawarshi argues that through genre, all subfields of English Studies can be connected to address all types of texts in regards to their rhetorical situations and performative aspects.
This source, though focusing moreso on literary situations, is helpful as genre is a popular methodology in many FYCs at this moment. This is especially true of writing programs with a transfer-based curriculum or TFT (teaching for transfer). As it compares with Nowacek’s chapter, they are almost like companion pieces as Nowacek cites Bawarshi as an authority on genre and utilizes genre in her transfer theoretical framework. As Bawarshi is often cited as an authority and proponent of genre, this article is indeed reliable and objective. In fact, Lauer (in the McComiskey text) cites him as a leading authority on this concept. The goal of the source appears to expand the usage of genre outside of literary texts into other English studies subdisciplines.
This source was helpful to me in understanding another methodology of teaching FYCs. Practically every writing program across the nation is utilizing some aspect of genre theory in FYCs to aid in the realization of transfer. Though I’m a huge proponent of writing about writing, understanding genre theory helps me formulate the understanding of how important genre is in the purpose of FYCs and their place in general education courses. I can definitely see myself reading more about genre and how it affects the overall purpose and implementation of FYC goals. I now have a more informed understanding of how to go about selecting appropriate genres for a WAW-focused FYC.
Nowacek, Rebecca S. “Transfer as Recontextualization.” Agents of Integration: Understanding Transfer as a Rhetorical Act, Studies in Writing and Rhetoric, 2011, 10-34.
In this chapter, Nowacek explores a new theoretical framework for transfer: recontextualization. For her study, Nowacek reviewed scholarship from psychology and rhetoric/composition, showing their limitations, then introducing her concept of transfer as recontextualization. She states that transfer
http://www.mu.edu/cgi-bin/advprint/print.cgi?doc=http://www.mu.edu/magazine/fall05/news-writing.shtml
happens more often than believed or expected. In her research, she studied ten students through an entire semester to better understand how transfer works and happens, acknowledging the limitations of previous studies that relied on lab recreations and longitudinal studies. Though transfer isn’t entirely disputed, it hasn’t been entirely supported either. Skepticism regarding transfer comes from lack of understanding transfer. The questions surrounding transfer regard its possibility, citing Detterman’s assertion that Gick and Holyoak’s analogical problem solving wasn’t real transfer due to the prompting of participants. Nowacek disagrees: “As individuals move from context to context, they receive cues, both explicit and implicit, that suggest knowledge associated with a prior context may prove useful in the new context” (12). Nowacek also cites Russell’s ball-handling analogy, noting that it doesn’t state transfer doesn’t exist, just that transfer from one context to another is not always done easily. Tracing the concept of transfer back to Aristotle, Nowacek uses Perkin and Salmon’s low-road and high-road transfer, while suggesting that general cognitive strategies and local contextual knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Teaching to transfer is viable and noticeable, though it is “difficult to predict or control” (16). She notes various reasons why predicting/seeing transfer is problematic. To end her study, Nowacek includes five principles for her concept of transfer as recontextualization, which include genre as a rhetorical act.
This source is helpful in understanding how transfer is viewed and studied. It gives credit to the concept of transfer as a misunderstood concept, despite being at the heart of FYCs. FYCs are all about transferring the writing skills learned there to other writing situations. Interestingly, this source cites Bawarshi as an expert on genre, the heart of transfer theory. Nowacek relies on Bawarshi’s scholarship to fashion her concept of transfer as reconceptualization, which is genre-mediated. Nowacek is an expert in her field, so this chapter (a part of her text) is reliable in gaining a better understanding of transfer and how it can be properly utilized. Nowacek’s goal is to create a new theoretical framework for approaching transfer in order to better understand it and move beyond the limitations placed upon it by precious scholarship.
This source is very helpful in my understanding about WAW, as transfer is at its foundation. It has strengthened my view of the purpose of FYCs as being capable of transferring skills from one context to another, as Nowacek illustrates that it does indeed happen, even if it’s low-road transfer. Students are indeed able to see some value in what’s being taught in their FYCs. By understanding more about transfer, I will be able to better inform my stance on WAW and its implementation in FYC curriculum. I definitely have a more complete picture of how different theoretical frameworks can inform each other without automatically conflicting.
Epistemological Approach
http://www.prnewsonline.com/pr-writing-test
Like many students across the country, when I was admitted to college, I was very excited about the prospect of learning higher level skills I’d use for the future. I was also admitted into the Honor’s program, 
which only increased my excitement. Upon entering my Honors Freshman English class, I sat down ready to write advanced essays, waiting to be challenged. However, much to my dismay, the first paper was a narrative: write about your most embarrassing moment and what you learned from it. From there, we were tasked with writing a persuasive essay and other short writings where grammar superseded content. I completely checked out. How was this college-level writing?
As an English Instructor and a burgeoning composition scholar, I find myself questioning the basic premise of the first-year writing courses I have taught over the years. Though I understand the purpose behind this requirement (college-level writing is not easy for most students), I continue to grapple with the execution of its purpose. Unlike Crowley, I do believe that first-year/introductory writing courses (FYCs) should be required for all students, especially at institutions with open enrollment policies. In fact, a strong foundation in the writing expectations at the college level can be very beneficial for all students, no matter the institution.
However, even with stating this, the idea that one or two introductory writing courses can teach students every genre in every discipline is unrealistic, as agreed by Wardle, Downs, and Fraizer. There is already the understanding that one introductory course in a discipline is not enough to teach students everything there is to know about that discipline, so why so much pressure on FYCs? As Fraizer states, “The argument that general writing skills instruction teaches students a “universal educated discourse” is discredited as myth” (36). In other words, the fundamental goal of FYCs can not be achieved.
Since I’m a proponent for the FYC requirement, like Wardle, I feel that writing should be treated as the disciplinary focus of these courses, i.e. writing about writing (WAW). The composition field has really grown into its own, moving beyond the basic writing courses of its inception, complete with its own scholarship, scholars, and theoretical frameworks. With this in mind, students should be equipped, not with attempts at mimicking other disciplines’ genres (what Wardle calls “mutt genres”), but with knowledge of writing itself. Quoting Freedman, Wardle asserts, “FYC courses are different in “substance . . . epistemological assumptions . . .and ideological context” from all the other courses for which they purport to prepare students to write” (766). Because the teaching of genres is incredibly context-specific, mimicking these contexts fails to understand the foundations and underlying assumptions upon which these contexts are built, including the content knowledge the students and instructors would need in order to effectively write in specific disciplines.
Aside from refocusing FYCs towards WAW, simply shifting from the general writing skills framework to WAW will not help make FYCs more effective for students or instructors alike. One of the central problems I’ve faced as an instructor is not having the theoretical framework behind the courses I taught, which can be remedied by adding the theoretical concept of threshold concepts to my teaching. As Meyer and Land state, threshold concepts are “‘conceptual gateways’ or ‘portals’ that lead to a previously inaccessible, and initially perhaps ‘troublesome,’ way of thinking about something” (373). Since composition has a plethora of scholarship, why not share some of this information with our students? By combining threshold concepts with WAW (as Wardle and Downs have done), composition instructors can move beyond just practicing our craft to also utilizing and understanding a theory for our craft.
It is important for us composition instructors and professors–including contingent faculty and graduate students–to increase our disciplinary presence via professionalization. We are content-area specialists and our field will benefit greatly by constant articulation and rearticulation of our disciplinary threshold; professional development and building communities where instructors can exchange ideas are key. According to Phelps, “The business of such a community is curriculum development as a form of knowledge-making” (867). This “knowledge-making” can help department members understand the bigger picture of FYCs within the college/university community.
In all, I hope to contribute to the shift in FYC instruction and practice within my own institution, which, like many writing programs across the country, still utilizes “mutt genres” and a literature focus with the hope of skill transference. Because this shift cannot happen overnight, I hope to lead professional development efforts and increase my program’s effectiveness so my students, like many others, can benefit from the composition scholarship. In essence, I wish to create the type of writing program I never had.
Works Cited
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.
Meyer, Jan H.F. and Ray Land. “Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning.” Higher Education 49, (2005), pp. 373–388.
Phelps, Louis Wetherbee. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.” College English, Vol. 53, No.8 (Dec., 1991), pp. 863-885. PDF.
Wardle, Elizabeth. “Mutt Genres” and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” CCC, Vol. 60, No. 4 (June 2009), pp. 765-789.
[Top]PAB 3: Epistemological Alignment
Meyer, Jan H.F. and Ray Land. “Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning.” Higher Education 49, (2005), pp. 373–388.
Within this article, Meyer and Land delve more deeply into their concept of threshold concepts, which encapsulates the understanding of disciplinary knowledge and its dissemination to students. As the authors explain, threshold concepts are “‘conceptual gateways’ or ‘portals’ that lead to a previously
https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/educational-futures-rethinking-theory-and-practice/threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning/
inaccessible, and initially perhaps ‘troublesome,’ way of thinking about something” (373). These gateways must be transformative, irreversible, and integrative. By troublesome, the authors refer to knowledge that is difficult to grasp for a variety of reasons. In regards to its reception, the authors note that professionals in other disciplines see threshold concepts as “pedagogically fertile” (374). They can lead to expanded language and sense of self, which can be seen via liminality, or the space/time upon which social rituals are conducted. Because of the daunting nature of liminality, some students may resort to mimicry. However, having a better understanding of this difficult transformation can aid in understanding ‘stuck places’ and epistemological obstacles, thus proving troublesome knowledge beneficial. A caveat the authors note towards scaffolding a threshold concept is to avoid utilizing an overly simplistic version or a ‘naive version,’ as this may lead to a false proxy and encourage mimicry. Overall, the authors seek further studies across disciplines with the hope that their new framework will help aid in curriculum design. In turn, this may help teachers address pre-liminal variation, or variation in students’ ‘tacit’ knowledge of concepts, including locating “troublesomeness and ‘stuck places’ for their students” (386). Ultimately, the authors hope threshold concepts will become a threshold concept.
This source is useful in helping me understand the basic foundation of Wardle and Downs’ argument for WAW, as their entire argument hinges on the idea that composition has disciplinary knowledge that needs to be shared with students. This source was cited in Wardle and Downs, which Wardle cites in “Mutt Genres,” proving that this article is like a companion piece. The information within this article is reliable due to previous citation. The authors claim that this article is an expansion on their previous work, implying that their concept has been tested; however, there is still objectivity throughout this article. The goal is to help teachers help their students understand the various disciplinary knowledge students are likely to gain throughout their university/college schooling.
This source is very helpful to me, especially epistemologically. As I develop more as a composition scholar and educator, I increasingly understand how much knowledge there is in the composition field and how much students would greatly benefit from having, at least some, of this knowledge. I also learned more about how the students’ identities play into their learning, something I hadn’t thought about before. This explains a great deal about how and why some students understand certain concepts more readily than others. There is certainly more to teaching composition than just pedagogy; having a strong theoretical framework is a must. This reminds me of the question Phelps revisits in her article, “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition”: “can–or should–theory “discipline” practice?” Or is the reverse true? ( 864). I believe they aid each other.
Wardle, Elizabeth. ““Mutt Genres” and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” CCC, Vol. 60, No. 4 (June 2009), pp. 765-789.
Within this article, Wardle challenges the general assumptions regarding the goals of FYC, which involves teaching students to write for all the genres of the university. In order to challenge this assertion, Wardle conducted a study on the second semester FYCs at a large midwestern university composition program. What she discovered validated the criticism levied against general skills writing classes proposed by genre and activity theorists over the years. Wardle argues that reframing the goals of FYC from teaching students to write to teaching them about writing would better benefit students. Quoting Freedman, Wardle asserts, “FYC courses are different in “substance . . . epistemological assumptions . . .and ideological context” from all the other courses for which they purport to prepare students to write” (766). There are many reasons why the goals of FYC have remained consistent, such as from its inception, English was created to teach students how to write, and even the lack of strong, convincing theoretical critiques. Wardle reviews the typical writing genres, such as the narrative, argument, and reflection, calling these “mutt genres;”these seek to mimic the genres in other activity systems, but have vague or contradictory purposes and/or audiences. These “mutt genres” also tend to morph to create genres exclusive to FYCs. Even when linking FYCs to specific disciplines, problems arise as instructors are typically outsiders in those disciplines. Wardle offers two resolutions: 1) change the content so that the FYCs serve as boundary objects, bridging various disciplinary genres with instructors becoming more knowledgeable about genres throughout the university or 2) “lay such goals to rest” (783). Shift focus from teaching students to write, giving up the “myth of transience” (784). She suggests a new kind of course, like writing about writing, with writing being treated as the subject matter, noting without a general skills writing focus, other departments assume more responsibility for their own specific academic writing needs.
This source was very useful in learning more about where FYCs should be headed, in terms of creating more effective and realistic goals for these courses. Like the Meyer and Land article, this article seeks to offer more effective direction for pedagogy and course design. To be specific, Wardle seeks to provide a strong theoretical critique to convince compositionists for the necessity of change in the discipline. Wardle is an expert in the composition field, providing the needed ethos for this topic, rendering the article both reliable and objective.
This article is definitely helpful as I continue formulating my understanding of composition and its purpose in the university. Like many scholars, Wardle and Fraizer included, I don’t see how one or two FYCs can imbue students with all of the writing skills needed to write throughout the university and beyond. This goal is unrealistic and hinders the development of the discipline. I do, however, believe that composition itself should be taught as its own content within FYCs as teaching the “mutt genres” doesn’t actually help students develop as writers, like writing about writing could. The source adds credence to my developing epistemological alignment.
Work Cited
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.” College English, Vol. 53, No.8 (Dec., 1991), pp. 863-885.
Composition’s Major Question
From composition’s beginnings at Harvard University in 1885, the answer to the question, “What is the purpose of a first-year/introductory writing course?” has proved nearly impossible to answer. But, why? According to Dr. Louise Phelps, the trajectory of composition has not followed “a straight line.” So, the history of the question (and any subsequent attempts at answers) is very complicated, tied to the history of the English Department itself, and involves a long history of argumentation. In order to understand the trajectory of this question, one must first understand the history of arguments surrounding this question, and how it breaks down to what and how it should be taught in composition courses.
Many scholars have explored the intricate history of English, such as Alfred Kitzhaber, Ben Nelms, and David Russell. In Arthur Applebee’s text, Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English, he states, “The
http://www.albany.edu/etap/Arthur_Applebee.php
Harvard model was quickly followed by other colleges and universities; it offered an easy way to recognize literary studies without raising difficult questions about standards and methods: the subject tested would be composition, not literature” (30). Therefore, when composition courses first emerged, literature was the subject matter. At this point, first-year writing/introductory writing courses were called Freshman English.
During the 1960’s, the question of the purpose was pushed through the lens of pedagogy, as if understanding the methods of teaching the course defined its purpose. As Faigley asserts, “early studies of composing issues typically were isolated pedagogical experiments” (528). From 1957-1966, a more traditional approach developed in composition, entitled the “New English”. In reference to this approach, Parker asserts, “So Arthur Applebee is right, I think, in naming this a period of tradition, of moving back towards an old academic model of English, despite the “new” grammars and “new” rhetorics” (36). The Dartmouth Conference in 1976 challenged this view greatly by insinuating that “[the student’s] own abilities become intrinsic to the knowledge being grasped” (Parker 36). Other competing views from the 1960s included the Expressivist View (Peter Elbow as a leading proponent) and the Cognitive
https://english.stanford.edu/people/andrea-lunsford
View (including work by Andrea Lunsford). The 1980’s brought the Social View (Patricia Bizzell), using Bruffee’s idea of the “social construction of knowledge” (Lauer 121) and addition of cultural studies in the 1990’s.
Currently, compositionists have sought to answer the question of purpose by looking at the functionality of the writing course within the greater scope of the university itself. Despite research to the contrary, first-year/introductory writing courses are tasked with preparing students for all the writing situations they’ll ever encounter (throughout college and/or beyond). This is where writing about writing (WaW) and teaching to transfer (TFT) come in. As Wardle and Downs assert, “we see our field as having both declarative and procedural knowledge about writing that can and should be conveyed directly to students, so that they are empowered by knowing about the nature and workings of the activity itself and can act from their knowledge instead of having writing done to them.” In other words, the current objective is to teach students how writing works, with the idea that this knowledge will help them in later writing situations/encounters. However, as Fraizer notes, WaW is helpful to some students and to the field of Composition, “but may not be as important for some students as developing their own writing process and then adapting that process to the actual, evolving requirements of new forms of academic writing” (53-54). And thus, the argument continues.
Despite this seemingly “clean” historical view of the question of FYC’s purpose, the understanding of composition’s purpose occurred simultaneously with the changes to English Studies itself. It intertwined messily with shifts in literature studies and the development and redevelopment of the English Department, as addressed by many scholars, such as William Riley Parker. However, as the compositionist scholars continue their research on understanding the purpose of the FYCs, the question scholars can’t ultimately answer is “why,” as in, “Why do we teach what we teach?” Is it for access, a gatekeeper, prepare for the university, or life, in general? Ultimately, what this question reveals is that, though what and how to teach composition is a constant argument, the why (another “sub-question” of the primary question) is not answerable as it is a value question. Does the university value civic engagement, personal growth, or the workforce? Is its emphasis on the university as research and the student as knowledge-maker? As these are compatible values, the answer could be all of these or none of these. It all just depends on the institution.
Works Cited
Applebee, Arthur N. “The Birth of a Subject.” Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A History. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Ill. 21-44. Web.
Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 48.6 (1986): 527-42. Web.
Fraizer, Dan. “First Steps Beyond First Year: Coaching Transfer After FYC.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, 33.3, (Spring 2010), 24-57. Council of Writing Program Administrators. PDF.
Lauer, Janice M. “Rhetoric and Composition.” English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Bruce McComiskey, ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2006. Print. 106-152.
Parker, Jr., Robert, “From Sputnik to Dartmouth: Trends in the Teaching of Composition.” The English Journal, 68.6 (Sep., 1979), 32-37. Web.
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Personal Interview. 5 October 2016.
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.
[Top]