Object of Study
In a general sense, every discipline and sub-discipline within English Studies has its own object of study or objects of study. In other words, when it comes to generating knowledge, there must be a vehicle. Within the discipline of composition and the sub-discipline of first-year/introductory writing (FYC), the object of study revolves around the FYC program, especially at the curricular level. In many regards, this is what makes the field of composition unique. Instead of the object of study (OoS) being a tangible object, such as a text or book (as with literature), composition’s OoS centers on the nature of its purpose at the university level.
The primary object of study for composition, the FYC program itself, is always under construction, despite its growing “popularity” in English departments (“popularity” in terms of FYCs being required of all students at all universities and colleges). The overall design and scope of the FYC program is a point of contention as to its overall goal, as Wardle and Fraizer, among others, note. The program is tasked with
https://teensneedsleep.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/exeter-school-classroom-foucaultblog.jpg
teaching students how to write for every writing situation throughout college and beyond. This begs the question: How can one to two courses teach every student how to write for every writing situation?
Due to the ubiquitous nature of this program at every college and university in America, it is constantly at the mercy of restructuring or retooling, especially from external forces. These external forces include professors from other disciplines within English studies to university and college administrators, as well as even state legislatures. All of these forces seek the knowledge to better understand how effective the FYC program is and whether or not it’s meeting its goal of creating college-level writers. In order to better understand the program, it is important to understand its curriculum from the course level.
Since these courses preceded the actual discipline or field, they are the primary focus for studying composition: its pedagogies, methods, and theories. As both Crowley and Coxwell-Teagues noted, these courses initially began as temporary courses at Harvard, meant to fix “what some saw as the “illiteracy of American boys”” (qtd in Coxwell-Teagues xiii) and “produce an educated person” (Crowley 9). Though this focus appears to have been challenged throughout the twentieth century, as McDonald notes, in quoting and citing Berlin, “historically, the “college writing course […] responds quickly to changes in society” (152). In this regard, first-year writing courses are on track to meet the overall missions of universities and colleges in creating the right environment for civic engagement.
This is reinforced by Comfort, Fitts, Lalicker, Teutsch, and Tischio, “Our collegial journey toward program reform begins with our belief that a fully realized college composition program can be an effective vehicle for advancing the goals of critical democratic literacy” (67). This view of composition can be seen in the major question commonly asked of FYCs: what is its purpose? In order to fully understand how composition answers this question, scholars have taken to studying the writings assigned within these courses, in particular their genres and the assessment of student writing in meeting student learning outcomes.
As many studies have noted, FYCs incorporate a number of genres to meet their goal of producing college-level writers. These genres include the typical EDNA-type essays (exposition, description, narration, and 
argumentation) to curriculum based more on transfer (as proposed by Nowacek) and writing about writing (Wardle and Downs). The current focus of study is on genre theory in particular, with Bawarshi is often cited as the leading authority.
Throughout the twentieth century, there was much debate regarding the very nature of introductory writing courses. These debates included what should be taught in FYCs, such as a literature-based focus at the program’s inception at Harvard and other universities from the nineteenth century to the 1960’s, to the social turn in the 1980’s. The various movements have shaped how FYCs currently operate and how this sub-discipline is studied. As illustrated above, scholars are constantly studying the entirety of the FYC program, now well into the twentieth century.
Despite a logical argument towards student writing itself being a tangible object of study within first-year writing/introductory writing courses, student writing itself is closely intertwined with how FYCs are studied. With Phelps calling the study of these courses a human science, and the push towards civic engagement at the university level, FYCs are at the forefront of change, with continued scholarship leading the way.
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon. “Composition in the University.” Composition in the University Historical and Polemical Essays, U of Pittsburgh, 1998. Pp. 1-18.
Coxwell-Teague, Deborah and Ronald F. Lunsford, editors. “Setting the Table: Composition in the Last Half of the Twentieth Century,” First-Year Composition From Theory to Practice, Parlor Press, 2014, pp. Xiii-xxvii.
McDonald, Marcia A. “The Purpose of the University and the Definition of English Studies.” Transforming English Studies: New Voice in an Emerging Genre, edited by Lori Ostergaard, Jeff Ludwig, and Jim Nugent, Parlor Press, 2008, pp. 143-163.
Rodgers Comfort, Juanita, Karen Fitts, William B. Lalicker, Chris Teutsch, and Victoria Tischio. “Beyond First-Year Composition: Not Your Grandmother’s General Education Composition Program.” WPA: Writing Program Administration Vol. 26, No. 3 (2003), pp. 67-86.
References
Bawarshi, Anis. “The Genre Function.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 3, Jan., 2000, pp. 335-360.
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.
Nowacek, Rebecca S. “Transfer as Recontextualization.” Agents of Integration: Understanding Transfer as a Rhetorical Act, Studies in Writing and Rhetoric, 2011, 10-34.
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.
Common Theories in Composition
Composition is a field rife with some of the “newest” methods or theories regarding how students write and interpret texts. Though this constant shifting can be seen as a mark against the field, because composition is still new to the academy, its scholars work tirelessly to provide the proper foundation to legitimate the field. This work requires constantly questioning any particular method or theory that is presented and/or popularized. However, as the field works to continue solidifying its foundation as a discipline, there are a few theories that have become mainstays: genre and transfer.
Genre, as noted by Anis Bawarshi, concerns how “communicants and their contexts are in part functions of the genres they write” (335). With genre comes the idea of a connection between the text and the 
writer/creator and their identities. Though genre is moreso utilized in FYCs in terms of practice for other writing situations, according to Bawarshi, rhetoric/composition is one of the fields in English Studies that has been expanding work on genre studies. In fact, due to the rhetorical nature of genre, many students already get some type of exposure to genre analysis when approaching particular writing assignments, such as how a narrative works: its purpose and audience, etc. As Bawarshi states, “genres do not simply help us define and organize kinds of texts; they also help us define and organize kinds of social actions, social actions that these texts rhetorically make possible” (335). Genre theory is especially helpful in helping students understand how a text operates and understanding a text’s key features and affect.
Though work in genre and genre theory is important within composition, including FYCs, transfer has been getting more explicit attention recently. Writing programs continuously face pressures in producing results in teaching students writing skills for their entire university careers. Despite research showing that teaching “general writing skills” is technically impossible, FYCs are still tasked with giving students the writing skills necessary to write in every writing situation they will encounter past first year/introductory writing. However, although transfer is a leading theory in composition, as Nowacek states, “In the absence
of the empirically grounded theoretical framework, an abiding skepticism about students’ abilities to connect what they’ve learned in one context to what they do in another has taken root” (10). In other words, regardless of how much transfer is deemed necessary, some instructors and institutions fail to see how transfer takes place due to the lack of representative data. However, as Nowacek noted, this skepticism stems from a lack of understanding about transfer/trying to make transference without understanding how it works in the first place.
This lack of understanding of transfer should not come as a surprise considering how theory is typically treated composition pedagogy. Theory is typically treated with suspicion, especially since practice gets so little respect far too often despite pedagogy being a primary focus of FYCs. However, transfer theory is at the root of the purpose surrounding the teaching of writing at the university level. As noted by both Crowley and Coxwell-Teague and Lunsford, Harvard first implemented an introductory writing course meant to prepare entering students for college-level writing. Therefore, transfer has been implied as part of the theoretical framework of FYCs since its inception.
Interestingly, within transfer theory, genre theory is also at play. As Nowacek writes, “Central to this concept of transfer as recontextualization is the role of genre” (18). As Nowacek seeks to improve how transfer is understood, she notes how important genre is to transfer. What this demonstrates is how important these two theories are to the field of composition, but, more importantly, how interconnected many composition theories are. For example, Wardle notes, “The gist of the critiques against FYC as a general writing skills course is this: the goal of teaching students to write across the university in other academic courses assumes that students in FYC can be taught ways of writing (genre and genre knowledge) that they can then transfer to the writing they do in other courses across the university” (766; bolding my own). Therefore, the recurring trend in FYC composition theory is for transfer to occur via genre.
Ultimately, what these two theories demonstrate is the maturing of composition theory as scholars are taking past scholarship and reformatting or retooling them as new knowledge is created within the field. Both authors, in effect, take previous work and either expand upon the concepts, such as with Bawarshi, or reconceptualize a concept, as with Nowacek, thus solidifying these two theories within composition.
Works Cited
Bawarshi, Anis. “The Genre Function.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 3, Jan., 2000, pp. 335-360.
Nowacek, Rebecca S. “Transfer as Recontextualization.” Agents of Integration: Understanding Transfer as a Rhetorical Act, Studies in Writing and Rhetoric, 2011, 10-34.
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.
References
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. xiii-xxvii.
Crowley, Sharon. “Composition in the University.” Composition in the University Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh, 1998. Print. 1-18.