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

Black and white photo of a traditional classroom with wooden desks

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 Wooden letters spelling out word essayargumentation) 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.

One response to “ Object of Study ”

  1. Elise Green says:

    You ask a valid question that I often hear from my colleagues in other disciplines: “How can one to two courses teach every student how to write for every writing situation?” While you ask it with sincerity, they often ask it to deligitimize what we do as compositionists. It’s a valid question, though, and over the last several years I’ve learned to just be honest and answer the question, “One or two courses can’t teach students how to write for every situation.” In fact, I’ve even admitted this to my students. There’s no possible way that in a 15 week semester I can teach them everything there is to know about writing. But what I can do is provide them with the tools they need to be successful in other writing situations. It’s up to them to figure out how to adapt those tools and use them accordingly. With this “honest approach,” I’ve found one of my OoSes in FYC to become the final exam, which at my institution, takes the form of a reflective argument in which the students are prompted to articulate to what extent they achieved the outcomes for the semester. This exam often produces some of the best, most insightful writing I see from my students all semester and has proven to be a useful tool in assessing what’s working in my classroom and what’s not. Perhaps this is something that could prove to be useful for you, too. Thanks for this thoughtful post, Angela.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *