September 29, 2016 – Officle 4032

The struggle to establish and define Basic Writing has been evident for some time, and as DeGenaro and White (2000) noted in their article that Basic Writing—like the larger field of English Studies—needed more methodological common ground to create a more established place in the academy. The field does not lack in discussion nor “professional dialectic,” but where it does fall short is a methodological consensus with clearly defined evidence that supports the ideological discussions and claims scholars are making (DeGenaro and White, 2000). In this article, the authors focused on one of the more critical issues of the discipline: is the Basic Writing class hurting the student population by “perpetuat[ing] a hierarchy of dialects and linguistic differences” in the university? (DeGenaro and White, 2000, p. 24). This does not refer to the curriculum specifically; rather, it is the influence remedial education has on the university setting itself. The example they provided was an exchange between Sharon Crowley and Howard Tinberg, and despite holding opposing views on “mainstreaming,” they both lack the evidence needed to “appeal to audiences—[university administration and political figures]—outside our discourse community” (DeGenaro and White, 2000, p. 27), but more importantly, they lack the methodological commonplace to make progress. DeGenaro and White (2000) examined how this discussion had three different methodological backings, but none were the same (philosophical, experimental, historical) and could not align with one another to make progress in the conversation. Without a clear unified methodological approach to proving the necessity of Basic Writing, the field, as their title suggested, is “going in circles.”

While “mainstreaming” itself is a current topic for Basic Writing, this article addressed the larger issue, one that is connected to the field of Composition and Rhetoric as a whole, and that is establishing consistent and thorough methodological practices to legitimize the field. English Studies has seemingly existed apart from the STEM courses largely due to the scientific, research model most universities follow, so not only finding ways to produce quantitative research, but to replicate it, is where the field needs to be. It needs Big Data. Additionally, Basic Writing is not only facing the pressures of trying to establish itself as a subdiscipline through methodological consistency (DeGenaro and White, 2000), it is also trying to fight for survival amidst current discussions to move it to two-year institutions only.

Basic Writing needs more Big Data for evidence rather than anecdotal discussion.

Though Donahue’s (2012) work was more focused on clarifying what transfer is and entails, her discussion pairs well with DeGenaro and White (2000) because the theory of transfer could potentially lead to more quantitative data in the future. Some questions that could be addressed are how are basic writers identified?; is it because they lack certain composition skills, or do they have those skills already and cannot “transfer” them into an academic context?; do basic writers lack a metacognitive awareness of agency in multiple contexts, or is it just one?; do basic writers struggle with a particular form of transfer? These and other questions could potentially foster some of the consistency in research DeGenaro and White (2000) called for.

References

DeGenaro, W., & White, E. (2000). Going Around in Circles: Methodological Issues in Basic Writing Research. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(1), 22-35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43739261

Donahue, C. (2012). Transfer, Portability, Generalization: (How) Does Composition Expertise “Carry”?. In K. Ritter & P. Kei Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring Composition Studies (pp. 145-166). Boulder, CO: UP of Colorado.

This link connects to Amazon's page to purchase this book — Exploring Composition Studies (contains Donahue’s chapter on transfer)

As technological advancements leads to new forms of media and the corresponding literacies, composition scholars and educators alike have discussed theories that would assist students in adapting to the ever-changing landscape, both educational and corporate; however, what has become evident is students struggled to make the connection between different contexts, whether from one educational level to another, or from the university to the workplace, which is where the more recent discussion of transfer theory in composition has taken shape. In Donahue’s (2012) work, she provided a brief history of transfer and what the theory is meant to accomplish, but the rest of the chapter highlights the complexities of the theory: what is required for it to take place, what is actually transferred, what roles the student and the educator must assume, and where it exists (if it does). She clarified the different recognized forms of transfer including high road and low road; vertical; situated and sociocultural; and near and far. As seen through the varying definitions and forms, transfer is as fluid as the cultural, social, and technological shifts that necessitate its importance. What Donahue (2012) provided is not just a history and detailed description of current transfer theory in composition studies; it is a gathering of voices regarding a crucial part of the discipline as it works to establish clear methodological practices and provide identity.

As Donahue (2012) noted, the theory of transfer “[is] not new” with the earlier research focused on the movement of more basic “principles” (p.147). Yet the current discussion is new because of the changes “constituted by shifts in culture and community, flows of capital and discourse, emergent technologies and communications media” (Luke, 2004, p.86). Whitney (2011) noted the effects these shifts create in the English classroom and how students struggle to navigate the different writing environments presented in education and personal settings. What scholars have noticed, and what I have seen in my classroom, is a body of students caught in the changing tides of technological, social, and cultural change, who are engaging in highly communicative and rhetorical practices via various forms of media; however, they are unaware of this occurring, and when placed in a structured, educational setting, return to a Freirian “banking concept” of education where writing is passive and often disconnected to what matters in the student’s personal life. The lack of metacognitive awareness our students display regarding their abilities as communicators in their personal lives in addition to their apathetic approaches to communication in the classroom is alarming, and this prompts the bigger question our experiences and work point to: how can we help students understand and establish agency and then transfer their skills to other areas, helping them to navigate the ever-changing environments they inhabit? But Donahue’s (2012) discussion of transfer presents another question the field must address, which is how can we measure if this is occurring, especially when some examples of transfer are subtle and seemingly unnoticeable? What are the methodological practices that we should incorporate that will help establish the discipline in academia? I believe there is a wealth of opportunity in composition and rhetoric through transfer studies, and Donahue’s (2012) work is a great overview of what it has been, is, and possibly will be.

References

Luke, A. (2004). At Last: The Trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 85-95. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171653

Whitney, A. (2011). In Search of the Authentic English Classroom: Facing the Schoolishness of School. English Education, 44(1), 51-62.

Day: September 29, 2016

ENGL 810 PAB 2b

ENGL 810 PAB 2a