October 2016 – Officle 4032

PAB 4b

The focus of Martin’s review was Pop Warner, but what he was not prepared for was the community of discourse this review needed to inhabit.

Much of the discussion about transfer focuses on beginning writers working to improve, especially in the academic setting. For example, we might examine transfer as it pertains to a FYC student, her writing skills developed in informal situations such as social media, and how awareness of audience there might help her develop awareness of audience in the academic setting. Anson (2016), on the other hand, documented a different perspective of transfer as evidenced by Martin, a college professor, and his struggle to write a weekly recap of his son’s Pop Warner football games. While his writing for work was often highly successful in multiple genres and modes, which exemplified his ability to write well in various situations and often at the highest levels of academics, the new task of writing a simple review posed a significant challenge. Anson (2016) stated, “Clearly, Martin’s summaries demonstrated a high level of writing competence independent of their context: the resources of a sophisticated vocabulary, expert control of syntax, a penchant for smart phrasing, organizational skills, rhetorical savvy, impeccable grammar. But in this context, such ability was beside the point: writing is deemed successful by the standards of a particular community of practice or group of readers” (p.531). The definition of “writing expertise” is localized to particular discourses, and Martin struggled with a far more simplistic discourse than he was accustomed. Using Beaufort’s (2007) framework of writing expertise, Anson (2016) breaks down Martin’s “expertise” in five areas and discussed where it did or did not overlap in the unfamiliar context, essentially explaining why he struggled to transfer his prior skills and knowledge to a rather simple task.

While Anson’s (2016) study does not focus on Basic or first-year writers, which will probably be who I choose to follow in my research, I found his article to be quite informative of how transfer is not necessarily difficult because of the novice status of writers. Any writer can feel comfortable and entrenched in a certain discourse, no matter their awareness of the rhetorical situation or their writing abilities. I have noticed the trend for researchers to focus on transfer at the introductory level, largely because the students are learning something new, but understanding the struggle to be more universal and less limited gives more insight to where transfer can and does exist.

The primary difficulty in Martin’s case was the community of practice, not his ability to write, which is true for many. Anson (2016) commented that there is increasing “scholarship [looking] to explore how writers conceptualize transient, overlapping, unstable communities. And it is just starting to account for the degree of unity and fragmentation within such communities and the extent to which their actors are situated within multiply configured spaces, each with its own shared assumptions and knowledge. (p. 537). I have often perceived the academic classroom as a more stable environment with clear expectations laid out for student writing; however, perhaps I should revisit this view. Is the classroom environment stable with familiar and easy to read structures, especially as the students bring knowledge of K-12 academic settings to the university atmosphere? Or is there a degree of negative transfer that occurs because the students perceive the community of practice to be more unstable?

This case study not only examines transfer, but it provides me with some ideas of more OoSes I might use. In addition, the perception of why students struggle with transfer is more about context than what might have been apparent before.

References

Anson, C. M. (2016). The Pop Warner Chronicles: A Case Study in Contextual Adaptation and the Transfer of Writing Ability. College Composition and Communication, 67(4), 518-549. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1798722905?accountid=12085

Beaufort, Anne. (2007). College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State UP.

PAB 4a

Transfer theory, though not new, remains a current discussion in Rhetoric and Composition, especially with ESL, first year, and basic writers. In their article, DePalma and Ringer (2011) discussed transfer theory in the ESL context but argued for a new conceptualization of transfer. They termed it “adaptive transfer,” one that is “the conscious or intuitive process of applying or reshaping learned writing knowledge in order to help students negotiate new and potentially unfamiliar writing situations” (DePalma and Ringer, 2011, p.135). They identified most transfer theories as focusing on a “reuse” of “static” skills and knowledge, moving from one context to another without any real change apart from the environment itself, which is too reductive, a similar argument Kincheloe (2006) made about traditionalist views of pedagogy and research in the classroom. The static view removes the writer authority; whatever changes or adaptations the writer makes in the process of transfer are not recognized, which leads to the other problem of static view, which is reader context. The cultural discourse of the person(s) determining whether transfer occurred often do not reflect the native discourse of the writer; thus, this essentially narrows the reader’s view of how the writer may have transferred knowledge or skills from one context to the other. Essentially, DePalma and Ringer (2011) argued that the focus of transfer theory needs to shift from what “doesn’t happen to what does happen” (p.141).

Adapt or Fail — Reductive transfer theories focus more on what is not happening while adaptive transfer looks at what does.

I agree with Depalma and Ringer’s (2011) argument against the more reductive transfer theories that many scholars have used in their research and methodologies. This approach often leads to an overly simplified examination of a text as indicative of successful transfer or not while ignoring the process of how that text came to be. Their “adaptive transfer theory” aligns more with the constructivist views I discussed in the Epistemological Paper, giving more weight to the outside factors that contribute to rhetorical choices made by students in the formation of texts. Yet, while their article puts more focus on L2 writers, the theory can easily apply to Basic Writers, who share the difficulties in navigating new environments (academic) with L2 students. By extrapolating the premise of the theory, I can solidify what my objects of study might be in future research.

The popularity of transfer theory is not surprising because of the growing number of technological advancements in addition to greater recognition of disparities between student backgrounds. One remark made by DePalma and Ringer (2011) that resonated with me is “texts become spaces of negotiation” rather than stable (p. 142). This encapsulates the purpose of using adaptive transfer theory when conducting case studies because of the importance to recognize how writers negotiate the situation, bring some knowledge and skills from previous writing contexts influenced by various political, social, and cultural factors, to a new setting that also includes its own varying factors of influence. Too often we have viewed texts as disconnected from writer and reader, missing the complexity of the formation and interpretation of such it. While it might contain evidence of transfer, it does not necessarily mean it is objectively present at the surface; it might require a little more digging.

Limiting Transfer — Limiting successful transfer to reductive criteria will also limit our understanding of it.

While this article is more theoretical than evidence of methodology in practice, it provides a framework of how I can interpret other case studies and the types of transfer they use when producing data.

References

DePalma, J. & J. Ringer. (2011). Toward a Theory of Adaptive Transfer: Expanding Disciplinary Discussions of “Transfer” in Second-language Writing and Composition Studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 134-147. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.003

Kincheloe, J. (2011). A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice. Counterpoints, 352, 219-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980820

ENGL 810 Paper #3 Epistemological Alignment

Aligning with a certain position, essentially choosing sides, is not difficult to do: I root for the Boston Red Sox (i.e. my side). Yet, when considering the implications of identifying my epistemological alignment, I am hesitant, though paralyzed would probably be a better word. It is not as easy as merely choosing a side, picking a team to root for, or buying memorabilia and becoming a part of the crowd watching the game. In academia, such a choice does not create a passive existence in the stands, merely there to watch the spectacle that is scholarship; this choice is my identification with a particular view with specific people and identified values, and it is a marker of not only who I am as a person, but also who I am as a pedagogue and a scholar. So essentially, this paper is about identifying an essential part of who I am.

With this question of identity in mind, I thought about the studies I am most drawn to, and the principles that those studies emanate from, which was social constructivism, recognizing how we create knowledge socially. To be clear, I do believe in absolute knowledge though some social constructivists would cringe at the term, but I perceive this as only partially revealed at times, obstructed by the complexities of political,

Constructivism- making meaning through interaction with other entities

social, and cultural factors. The knowledge that is socially constructed, one that changes as the external factors change and what constructivists consider “new knowledge” is a different view or understanding of the absolute knowledge we thirst for. Essentially, it is not necessarily “new,” but it is new to us. It exists beyond our measure or complete understanding at any one point in time; however, the parts revealed through scholarship are accessible and allow us to piece together the absolute knowledge we seek.

Social constructivism allows for a thorough analytical approach to the complex situations created in classes. Joe Kincheloe (2006) criticized the reductionist approaches that exist in the K-12 setting, which uses standardized testing models that limit knowledge to a package moving from theorists to educators to students; he argued for more reciprocity between educators and researchers in an effort to recognize the political, social, and cultural factors at play in the classroom. Leigh Jonaitis (2012) discussed the importance of recognizing Computer Mediated Technologies in the classroom through a transactional view, essentially seeing the interconnectivity of Basic Writers and CMT: “Consideration of technology in the basic writing classroom, then, is not a luxury, but instead a crucial part of considering the constantly evolving literacy practices that are such a large part of basic writers’ lives” (p.51). Both Kincheloe (2006) and Jonaitis (2012) suggested that approaching any of these components as though they are autonomous would be counterproductive to pedagogical practices and understanding what is actually occurring in the classroom; thus, their constructivist approaches are informing their views of pedagogy.

Limiting any component—human, technological, geographical—in this equation without recognizing the complexities would hinder the “educational growth” Dewey (1916) defined in his literature. Also, without recognizing the political implications of our own institutional practices and structures such as classifying Basic Writers, we create scenarios where students struggle to navigate the university, an unfamiliar terrain and discourse for them (Bartholomae, 1986; Hindman, 1993; Pozorski, 2013). The university, the faculty member, the students, and the technology all merge in a classroom setting, creating a situation where scholars must recognize not only the complexity this produces, but how those individual factors influence each other.

David Bartholomae-author of "Inventing the University" — David Bartholomae-author of “Inventing the University”

My earlier post (Paper #2) highlights the question of transfer in the university setting, especially with Basic Writers, which leads me to possible Objects of Study being student writing and technology (i.e. social media). I have considered examining student communication on Twitter and how they navigate the rhetorical situations existing there and if this same practice occurs in the classroom, an academic setting. Are students constructing knowledge in the classroom as different from the knowledge on Twitter? Why or why not? What factors—social, cultural, political—creates the rift between their writing in two settings and how could literacies from one successfully transfer to the other. Pozorski (2013) suggested that the incorporation of common and familiar technologies for students into the classroom would create more confusion and resistance because the academic setting influenced student perception of podcasts. While this is one particular study, I think more research is necessary.

In establishing an epistemological alignment, I am establishing a key foundation for future scholarship and pedagogical theories. To be blunt, this choice is incredibly important; however, it is not limiting. Richard Fulkerson (1990) stated, “Axiological commitments set up goals for pedagogy, but do not prescribe how best to reach them, and one’s decision about how to reach the goal will be guided but not determined by views of writing as a process, just as both procedural and pedagogical theories will be based on whatever research or experience one’s epistemology allows to constitute knowledge” (p.418). Fulkerson’s statement reveals just how epistemology serves as a core component of my profession and future studies, informing my practices as a teacher and later leading to the results I value as a result of my practices. I feel that a social constructivist approach is best when approaching the objects of study previously mentioned. It creates a focused view on the individual components while also recognizing the complexities resulting from their interaction. And while I may share this view with others, my pedagogical philosophies and axiological considerations will still create disparities, those which are common in the discourse of the field in the pursuit of knowledge.

References

Bartholomae, D. (1986). INVENTING THE UNIVERSITY. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43443456

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

Fulkerson, R. (1990). Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity. College Composition and Communication, 41(4), 409-429. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/357931

Hindman, J. (1993). REINVENTING THE UNIVERSITY: FINDING THE PLACE FOR BASIC WRITERS. Journal of Basic Writing, 12(2), 55-76. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43443613

Jonaitis, L. (2012). Troubling Discourse: Basic Writing and Computer-Mediated Technologies. Journal of Basic Writing, 31(1), 36-58. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43741085

Kincheloe, J. (2011). A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice. Counterpoints, 352, 219-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980820

Pozorski, A. (2013). Podcast paralysis: Inventing the university in the twenty-first century. Writing & Pedagogy, 5(2), 189.

PAB #3b

While Kincheloe (2006) does not specifically focus on Basic Writing, Jonaitis (2012) does. Her article focused on the multiple views practitioners and scholars have had using computer-mediated technology (CMT) in the Basic Writing setting. She utilized Bruce Horner’s (1996) “Discoursing Basic Writing” as a frame for discussing the shifting perspectives on CMT that occurred over the past thirty years. Of Horner’s (1996) discourses, Jonaitis (2012) describes five stances: oppositional, skeptical, utilitarian, transformational, and transactional. The more negative of the stances, oppositional and skeptical, regarded CMT as more harmful than standard practices (oppositional) or too forced for use in the classroom as some regarded it as a significantly impressive tool (skeptical). In contrast, the rest are more positive views with the utilitarian stance on CMT as more of a means to fulfill student “needs,” the transformational as possibly altering student understanding of her own abilities, and transactional as the consistent reshaping of literacies as “social practices and technology” are connected. Jonaitis (2012) focused on the transactional view and how scholars must recognize the interconnectivity between technology and social practice: “Consideration of technology in the basic writing classroom, then, is not a luxury, but instead a crucial part of considering the constantly evolving literacy practices that are such a large part of basic writers’ lives” (p.51). CMT should not be viewed as an autonomous entity, isolated from student and teacher interaction with it.

CMT's influence needs to be seen in its entirety. — CMT’s influence needs to be seen in its entirety.

Like Kincheloe (2006), Jonaitis (2012) follows more of a constructivist epistemology, one that highlights that knowledge exists in understanding how the different entities involved relate to and shape one another. My specific interest in this article is the focus on technology and student literacies. Jonaitis argued that we must “. . . consider the wealth of literacy practices that our basic writers bring to the classroom” (p.45). How might the literacies basic writers already possess transfer to the academic setting? How might our choice of CMT in the classroom affect whether those literacies transfer or not? How does the educational setting possibly mute those literacies though the CMT is the same? Any question of whether transfer occurs between social media communication and academic writing must include a thorough examination of the specific CMT, its political, social, and cultural implications as it connects to students in and out of the classroom. Additionally, what are the implications of this continuously evolving relationship for our pedagogies? Any choice made in the educational setting should not be perceived as creating a single effect, but it should be viewed as influencing any entity within that context.

How does our interaction with technology shapes our perceptions of education? — How does our interaction with technology shapes our perceptions of everything, including education?

We can study students, CMT, personal pedagogy, institutional setting, or any other component; however, viewing these as autonomous objects will also limit any results we may produce as both Kincheloe (2006) and Jonaitis (2012) suggested. And like Jonaitis (2012) noted, as technology continues to evolve and become more accessible, especially for children from lower-income families, we should question how this changes our pedagogical practices once that generation arrives at the university setting? A high number of basic writers come from lower-income families; however, increased digital literacies among this student population could alter how the sociocultural identity of basic writers is formed. We must move towards a more comprehensive understanding of basic writers amidst the technological advancements, so following a constructivist approach is most likely the best choice when examining transfer with basic writing and social media. This could change as my research interests mature, but I see a better understanding of basic writers outside of the formalist, simple reductionist points of view.

References

Jonaitis, L. (2012). Troubling Discourse: Basic Writing and Computer-Mediated Technologies. Journal of Basic Writing, 31(1), 36-58. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43741085

Kincheloe, J. (2011). A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice. Counterpoints, 352, 219-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980820

PAB #3a

Kincheloe: Advocate for Critical Pedagogy — Joe Kincheloe (1950-2008)

First, I did not select this article just because it said “Epistemology” in the title; rather, I identify with Kincheloe’s approach to pedagogy and how it ties into my research interests. Kincheloe’s notoriety stems from his work in education, specifically connecting with constructivism. In “A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice,” he defined and explained the Critical Complex Pedagogy, one that follows the constructivist principles of knowledge that exists in the constructs we create. The issue he addressed is one that is not uncommon for many disciplinary fields, including English Studies: the division that has and still exists between practitioners/educators and researchers. He criticized the formalist model, one that resembled more of a linear assembly line-type of movement where scholarship from researchers informed institutions and its educators, who then implemented the theories in the classrooms for the students to receive. Lacking the reciprocity that would have informed and benefited both educators and researchers, this reductionist approach oversimplified the sociocultural complexities, those presented by the students, educators, institution, and technology, within the classroom and essentially “deprofessionalized the teachers” (Kincheloe, 2006, p.222). Researchers only provided “solutions disassociated from the perils of professional practice” (Kincheloe, 2006, p.225) in an effort to find the most effective way to improve test scores and make this process appear “successful.” Thus, Kincheloe (2006) called for more awareness of how research, knowledge, and practice intersect in what he terms the “bricolage” (p.225), where educators and scholars could work together to identify issues present that may have been disguised previously with the normalcy of the system.

While this article does not specifically discuss English Studies, Basic Writing, or any specific discipline, the importance lies in constructivism, recognizing the complexities that exist in the classroom and the importance of social contextualization. In my own research, I must consider the contextual factors of any Objects of Study I might focus on. Moreover, the definition of basic writers is local, meaning across the academy there is not a clear, universal method of defining them, yet our definition of them derives from particular sociocultural factors present. Simply overlooking these complexities would be the oversimplification Kincheloe (2006) warned against. He also stressed how isolating each part—student, class, curriculum, teacher, researcher—may generate numbers that appear to indicate success, but they actually show an epistemological issue where the knowledge generated appears to be “true” but is removed from the full context and thus misleading as to whether any changes to curriculum and practice is efficacious. Kincheloe (2006) commented on why oversimplification happens: “Simplicity sells, complexity doesn’t” (p.228). The language of administration is that of numbers, but more concern should be given as to how we generate those numbers.

I agree with Kincheloe’s (2006) views regarding how scholars should view the educational setting and the many contributing factors—social, political, cultural—that shape it. As we change, it changes, and without acknowledging this, we create, at the very least, incomplete truths. If I am examining if transfer occurs between social media and classroom writing for basic writers, then I must begin with the factors that contribute to a definition of each but also how the interaction between them affects those identities. Basic writers alone reveal the web of sociocultural complexities in order to reach a definition, but a social media site such as Facebook would also include additional complexities; thus, the interaction of the two, inside and outside of the classroom, creates new identities for each. Limiting my OoSes will make this more manageable, but it will not be simple.

Interview with Joe Kincheloe by Freire Project:

Reference

Kincheloe, J. (2011). A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice. Counterpoints, 352, 219-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980820

ENGL 810 Paper 2

Does Basic Writing fit? — Where is Basic Writing’s place in higher education?
Photo Credit: Pixabay

Basic Writing has worked to establish not only its legitimacy in the academy since the 1970s (M. Shaughnessy, 1977), it has had to fight for its place in the four year university setting as well. Threatened by administrative decisions emanating from funding concerns as well as the desire to prevent “the erosion of standards,” Basic Writing has been pushed to technical and community college campuses (Otte & Mlynarczyk, 2010, p.9), a process of “mainstreaming” where the removal of Basic Writing supposedly removes the hierarchies created by its inclusion. While this fight is nothing new, it does prompt questions. In an interview with D. Richards, he discussed the call in Rhetoric and Composition, led by Kathleen Blake Yancey early in her editorship with CCC, for empirical-based research with intended replicable findings (personal communication, September 21, 2016). Likewise, what empirical research can we do to establish the purpose, need, and success of Basic Writing, not just in our own views, but those of the administrators and politicians who have sought to eliminate remedial subjects? Much of this question originated for Composition and Rhetoric at its beginning, fighting for more recognition than just a FYC in the early 1900s. But for Basic Writing, it is less about where it exists, but if it should. In order to convince the “decision-makers” of the need for such courses, scholars must use the language of administration, which is that of empirical evidence showing the positive effects of keeping remedial programs.

However, DeGenaro & White (2000) noted that before any designs of empirical research begin, Basic Writing scholars must establish a methodological consensus, a statement later echoed by Adler-Kassner & Harrington (2006) when they called for a “time to move beyond academic discussion. We need to take our perspectives and our programs public: it’s time to take data in hand, with rhetorical fierceness” (p.44) because without it, “those strategies are hollow—we might even say ‘empty rhetoric’ unless they are supported by data” (p.43). Much of the work completed before has been theoretical, a “professional dialectic” (DeGenaro & White, 2000) that provides a wealth of ideas but little hard evidence.

One area that Basic Writing has looked to for possible longitudinal studies to justify Basic Writing’s inclusion is transfer theory. If researchers could provide data showing the skills and knowledge in Basic Writing allows for horizontal and/or vertical transfer, it would justify the inclusion of the discipline in post-secondary education. Yet, much of the recent studies in transfer reveal just how difficult it is due to the varying requirements that need to be in place in order for transfer to be successful and thus measureable. Bergmann and Zepernick (2007) commented that students did not view writing in the FYC as the same as writing in other academic disciplines. While students might display adaptive practices where they recognize the type of writing asked for in a particular discipline, they see this as case by case and not interconnected where skills in one will contribute to success in another. Additionally, Wardle (2009) documented how students encountered less writing assignments that required more involved research which their FYC prepared them for. So the ability to adapt to different contexts within each discipline does not seem to be the issue, but it is the student’s overall awareness of transfer, where skills connect across disciplines, that should be recognized.

As technological advancements continue to shape and reshape the field of education (Luke, 2004), altering how students encounter and interact with the curricula (Whitney, 2011), the need for further studies of transfer increase, especially since students build literacies in so many areas outside of the education setting. Moore (2012) drew attention to this issue and questions, “How do complementary, parallel, and intersecting activity systems impact students’ shifts among concurrent activity systems, as well as from school to professional activity systems?” Moore’s (2012) question eluded to “boundary-crossing,” as Donahue (2012) described as “[b]ringing ideas, concepts, or instruments from one domain into another, apparently unrelated one. . .” (p. 165). If my students actively participate in social media, how does their involvement there help them understand how to recognize audience in a composition classroom? How do students navigate rhetorical situations in a non-academic setting, and how can educators use that knowledge in a formal academic setting?

Social Media and the Classroom — Can students’ abilities in using social media transfer to the classroom?
Photo Credit: LoboStudioHamburg

One big question in Basic Writing (should it exist and how to prove it is necessary?) has led to many investigations into transfer theory, which in turn has led to its own questions regarding what is necessary for it to take place if it happens at all. But as more scholars study transfer theory in the classroom and understand how students successfully or unsuccessfully navigate multiple contexts that require similar, if not identical, skills and literacies, it will begin to provide the research needed to justify Basic Writing in higher education. More questions will certainly arise from these studies, but any living, thriving field cannot be stagnant or settled.

References

Adler-Kassner, L., & Harrington, S. (2006). In the Here and Now: Public Policy and Basic Writing. Journal Of Basic Writing (CUNY), 25(2), 27-48. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/composition/cbw/jbw.html

Bergmann, L.S. & J. Zepernick. (2007). Disciplinarity and Transfer: Students’ Perceptions of Learning to Write. Writing Program Administration 31(1-2), 124-49. Retrieved from http://p2048-ezproxy.liberty.edu.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=vic_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA242454181&sid=summon&asid=18038729db155c3ea2a7a3f615a65dc9

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.

Luke, A. (2004). At Last: The Trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 85-95.

Moore, J. (2012). Mapping the Questions: The State of Writing-Related Transfer Research. Composition Forum, 26 Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ985810

Otte, G., & Mlynarczyk, R. W. (2010). The Future of Basic Writing. Journal Of Basic Writing (CUNY), 29(1), 5-32. Retrieved from http://orgs.tamu-commerce.edu/cbw/cbw/JBW.html

Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford UP.

Wardle, E. (2009). “Mutt Genres” and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University? College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765-789. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40593429

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