Category: ENG810

Being a Scholar Of…

Pen on notebook

Putting Pen to Paper

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

Writing Word Cloud

The many elements of writing

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I see myself applying this knowledge by seeing what actually works with my current students, as well as updating some outdated ideology (namely the hierarchy of literature always at the top, with composition as a supporting player, especially when times get tough).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.

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.

[Top]

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 Meme of Willy Wonka that reads that's a nice theory tell me morewriter/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 absenceCartoon of two men against a board that reads here with an arrow pointing to the word there with one man stating to the other it's a simple model but it works for me 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.

Submit
[Top]

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

Anis Bawarshi photo

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

Doctor Rebecca Nowacek photograph

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.

[Top]

Epistemological Approach

Scrabble letters spelling writing

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, Calvin and Hobbs writing comic stripwhich 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

Book cover for Meyer and Land text Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning

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.

Submit
[Top]

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

Professional photo of English Education scholar Arthur Applebee

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

Professional photo of Rhetoric scholar Andrea Lunsford

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]

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

Book cover for Wardle and Downs text Writing About Writing

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.

 

[Top]

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

Harvard University emblem with school motto of Veritas Latin for Truth

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

Word cluster with various words describing writing, the writing process, and content-specific words regarding writing.

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.

Submit

 

[Top]