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
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.