Being a Scholar Of…

Posted on December 15, 2016 inENG810, Paper #6

Not surprisingly, this semester has taught me the great many aspects of English Studies, aspects I had never known or fully understood before. Many of these aspects included understanding how each of the different disciplines and subdisciplines work together (or don’t work well together). More importantly, I learned more about the field of rhetoric and composition: its history, movements, pedagogies, scholars, and theories. Through all of this research, I feel confident in better understanding what it means to be a scholar in rhetoric and composition, especially as it pertains to first-year composition/ introductory writing courses.

Throughout my own research, I have learned that, as composition itself is one of the newer disciplines in English studies, it is a very important, though much-maligned, field. This is definitely something I can attest to as a composition instructor for the past six years. In quoting I. A. Richards, Coxwell-Teagues and Lunsford wrote, in regards to the reductive testing required for students at the end of their writing course, “Such instruction led I.A. Richards to opine in 1936 that the rhetoric course taken during [students’] first year of college was “the dreariest part of the waste the unfortunate travel through” (3). Unfortunately, this idea is still very much the norm, despite the expanding volume of research meant to improve the effectiveness of these courses.

The adjunctification of the labor force isn’t helping this ideology, nor is this shift adding to the legitimacy of the subfield of first-year writing courses, as these courses are primarily taught by adjuncts. As a former adjunct, I can certainly attest to the difficulty in which it is to learn or engage in scholarship when working

part time. Because scholastic expectations are so minimal for adjuncts, and professional develop opportunities too often scant, entering my PhD program has exponentially increased my knowledge of composition scholarship. With this knowledge, I feel competent in applying what I have already learned in current and future courses, whether Freshman Composition or even my upper-division literature courses (which are still writing intensive).

Fundamentally, I see myself applying this knowledge by seeing what actually works with my current students, as well as updating some outdated ideology (namely the hierarchy of literature always at the top, with composition as a supporting player, especially when times get tough). As Crowley notes, “it remains true that the required [introductory writing] course serves literary studies in many ways, not the least of which is that composition gives literary studies something to define itself against” (2).  It is unfortunate that composition still plays second fiddle to literature; however, I am hopeful that the growing number of writing programs and a broadening notion of what writing is and what should be taught in a writing course is taking hold across the nation, even if this transition is happening slowly.  

With the increasing focus towards transfer, I can definitely see myself working towards writing about writing (WAW) (and perhaps eventually WAC–writing across the curriculum) in order to create and implement a more efficient writing program at my institution, separate from literature, though not departmentally; separate as in utilizing the vast body of knowledge developed over decades in creating and implementing new curriculum.  These two fields should co-exist, no matter the department size, not continue fighting for dominance.

As Wardle and Downs assert, “Writing studies is a field with content that should be taught to students, and there are myriad pedagogical strategies for teaching this content.”  I feel that students need to have aspects of this knowledge in order to truly understand how writing works. If the point of an introductory writing course is for students to learn how to engage with all future writing situations, then threshold concepts, as asserted by Meyer and Land, should be explored. Meyer and Land write that they “would argue further that as students acquire threshold concepts, and extend their use of language in relation to these concepts, there occurs also a shift in the learner’s subjectivity, a repositioning of the self” (374). Oftentimes, I have found that confidence in the task makes for better writers. When my students better understand what’s at the heart of writing, they write better.

Though it’s true that “[s]tudents transfer knowledge across disciplinary boundaries more often than current theories of transfer expect or acknowledge” (Nowacek 10),  much like Wardle, Downs, Fraizer, and many other scholars assert, I, too, have wondered about the viability of two courses teaching every writing situation from every discipline. Not only is this purpose detrimental for student writers, it is also detrimental to the field itself. Wardle says best when she argues, “By giving up the goal of “teaching students academic writing,” we can finally stop bowing to demands our research suggests can never be met by any one course or any one department” (785). Fraizer writes, “if writing situations and conventions vary from one discourse community to another, the teaching of transfer strategies becomes the key to helping students make connections between the writing they do in one community compared to another” (37). It is already established in other disciplines that an intro course is merely the beginning, not the entirety, of all the knowledge of that discipline. It takes continued exposure to, and building upon, the foundation of a field for students to understand and transfer what they’ve learned. I am completely on board with helping students make these types of connections and helping my department develop appropriate and effective strategies to implement curriculum to tackle the task of transfer.

As I grow more as a composition scholar, I feel it takes a knowledge of history, as well as theory and pedagogy in order to truly understand this field and be an effective scholar. One theory currently gaining more attention, concurrently with transfer and WAW, is genre theory. As Bawarshi states, “The past fifteen years have witnessed a dramatic reconceptualization of genre and its role in the production and interpretation of texts and culture” (335).  A firm understanding of current and past research trends is necessary, as composition is not a static field. However, as Phelps warns, “If, however, “research” continues to mean only formal inquiry, and formal inquiry is the only legitimate source of knowledge, then these efforts do not really change anything except, perhaps, to give some practitioners a marginal role in research” (Phelps 864). This is a major problem in any field of study, balancing the theoretical with the pedagogical, respecting those with first-hand knowledge, not just those with theoretical knowledge.Theory and practice must work together.

I would like to reconcile the theoretical and pedagogical, as they should definitely both be used by composition practioners. As Phelps asserts, many composition instructors are leery towards theory; however, I understand how theory can be used to ground pedagogy and be grounded by pedagogy. Also, in a more self-serving way, having a theoretical framework can also add legitimacy, both to FYCs and to practioners alike. As I have discovered, those disciplines that approach their subject matter via a theoretical lens tend to have more legitimacy and respect as a discipline. A composition scholar, which is what I aspire to be, would definitely have a firm understanding of this standard. I definitely see myself working on this reconciliation within my own department in the near future. Also, as I work at an HBCU, I would like to contribute more information regarding the different types of writing programs at HBCUs, which are still highly understudied. Having a specific research focus greatly helps in contributing to any field.

In addition to theoretical and pedagogical knowledge, having an understanding of the university and its purpose is equally as beneficial to scholars, as writing programs are at the mercy of the university or college administration and its understanding of its academic direction. There are several factors outside the department or program itself which have great influence on the structure and direction of a writing program, such as budget constraints, which can affect the available resources. Though changing curriculum or curricular focus may increase a program’s effectiveness, change costs money. As an instructor, and thus a professional in my field, I have come to a firm understanding that, no matter how much research I present, I am not the sole decision-maker as it concerns the writing program at my institution or in my department. I may provide input and present current scholarship, but it is ultimately not up to me as to the direction of the writing program at my institution. However, what this really means is that I will have to utilized creative solutions in implementing effective strategies I glean from scholarship. This may ultimately be my greatest contribution to the field thus far.

Works Cited

Bawarshi, Anis. “The Genre Function.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 3, 2000, pp. 335-360.

Crowley, Sharon. “Composition in the University.” Composition in the University Historical and Polemical Essays. University of Pittsburgh, 1998, pp. 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. Parlor Press, 2014, pp. xiii-xxvii.

Fraizer, Dan. “First Steps Beyond First Year: Coaching Transfer After FYC.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2010, pp. 24-57.

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, Vol. 49, 2005, pp. 373–388.

Nowacek, Rebecca S. “Transfer as Recontextualization.” Agents of Integration: Understanding Transfer as a Rhetorical Act, Studies in Writing and Rhetoric,  2011, 10-34.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.” College English, Vol. 53, No.8, 1991, pp. 863-885.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Mutt Genres” and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” CCC, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2009, pp. 765-789.

Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. “Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Revisiting Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions Five Years On.” Composition Forum 27, 2013, compositionforum.com/issue/27/reflecting-back.php. Accessed 27 September 2016.