ENGL 810 – Officle 4032

ENGL 810 Paper #6

Finding my place — Where might my studies place me in the field of Basic Writing Scholarship?

Much of the work in the field of Basic Writing has primarily focused on identity, pedagogy, and justification, but not necessarily in that particular order. After this course, I certainly envision my research contributing to the field most likely in more than one of these areas, yet I would be remiss not to acknowledge the weight of importance this responsibility carries. I cannot just throw on the “scholar” title like a name tag at a social event; being a scholar is an identity recognized by the body of work I put forth. Over the course of this semester, I have—forgive the cliché—merely scratched the surface of what Basic Writing entails. “Scratch” represents more of the necessity of depth for future research, but it also implies more scope and area covered in regards to the current scholarship within the field. Therefore, even though this paper details much of what I have learned and discussed in one semester, it should be received as a much broader approach to the field with the intention of more focused studies over the course of the Ph.D. program.

Historically, Basic Writing’s genesis, in the opinion of many, would most likely exist with Mina Shaughnessy’s Errors and Expectations where she coined the term “Basic Writer” (1977), yet as Ritter (2008) pointed out, the existence of Basic Writers was much earlier than this, even as early as the inception of Harvard’s FYC. Shaughnessy did present a more official title for this group, but like most discoveries, they often existed before being identified or noticed. And while Ritter (2008) made a strong argument for Basic Writers at the turn of the century and thus rejecting the common socialized view of Basic Writers (Shaughnessy, 1977), I argue that they easily existed before then. It was not until the turn of the century that we had more documentation of specific assistance afforded to them as noted by Ritter (2008) whereas before they may have been denied opportunity completely due to perceived inability.

Unfortunately, the exigencies that made Basic Writers visible and known are currently causing Basic Writing to disappear from the four year institutions. Near the turn of the century, Harvard opened its admissions to public high school graduates instead of just the traditional private school sector, allowing for increased student population and, consequently, the need to bridge their high school experience with the university curriculum through FYC. More students meant more variance in their academic abilities with some falling below the standards set in place and the subsequent need for additional instruction. However, as the standards of admission continued to grow over the next one hundred years, the university’s desire to preserve certain academic standards did also. Basic Writing, in the latter part of the twentieth century and even now, became a sign of “eroding standards” and began to be pushed to community college settings, essentially called “mainstreaming.” This is where I feel my contributions to the field begin to materialize in my mind. I understand that my scholarship is more than just advancing the field in general, it is advancing it by preserving it, justifying its existence and the need for further understanding as to who a Basic Writer is and what his or her path is in higher education.

Part of accomplishing this is finding the right approach to establish the need for Basic Writing. I was not exactly sure what this would be at first, but the more I thought about who Basic Writers are, the more I realized their definition is localized as others have noted (Adler-Kassner and Harrington, 2012, p. 30). But even with this variable from institution to institution, a common thread is that each student still retains literacies in other parts of his or her life, which led me to transfer theory. A hot topic in composition studies but certainly not new, transfer focuses on literacies a student may already have and how this might contribute to improving literacies in a different context. This could be from discipline to discipline, a lower to higher grade level, or even from informal to academic context. FYC often looks to the discipline to discipline transfer and K-12 to the vertical transfer, but I have found great value in the informal (external) to academic (internal) context simply because Basic Writers traditionally struggle in the academic context in general, not just in the composition classroom. They have trouble navigating the university and understanding the discourse present there (Bartholomae, 1986; Hindman, 1993; Pozorski, 2013), yet difficulties in one context does not insinuate struggles in all. Basic Writers often have literacies in other areas, which fosters the idea of using success in one area to help in another. This “boundary-crossing” is a “[b]ringing [of] ideas, concepts, or instruments from one domain into another, apparently unrelated one. . .” (Donahue, 2012, p. 165). Theoretically, transfer makes sense for Basic Writing research, but this is still not enough to justify it.

The predominant currency in academia is research and statistics, those that show the overall importance and success of a program or a course in connection with the mission of the university. The theoretical is fine, but when much of the discussion is only that, we must understand its limits and that “[it is] hollow—we might even say ‘empty rhetoric’ unless [it is] supported by data” (Adler-Kassner & Harrington, 2006, p.43). We must apply the theoretical and establish results, but much of the discussion of transfer has been focused on qualitative data such as interviews, case studies, and personal accounts (Anson, 2016; Clay-Buck & Tuberville, 2015; Vie, 2015). Through grounded theory, I could use qualitative data to establish a framework for quantitative data later. Can I do all of this in a single Ph.D. program? Most likely no, but this post is about where I position my studies in the field, and all of it certainly does not have to happen now.

Ideally, the Objects of Study I would like to examine would be the expected student writing taking place in the classroom (drafts, prewriting, CMC) in addition to “short-form digital writing” (Pigg, Grabill, Brunk-Chavez, Moore, Rosinski & Curran, 2014, p. 108) taking place in external contexts such as social media sites or even text messaging. Granted this is fairly broad, but it is a start. The more I have thought about this over the course of the semester and even before I began my studies in the Ph.D. program, I have realized that students enjoy sharing their opinions on current issues and topics that garner their interest, yet they often do not consider the complexities of what and how they are communicating.

The “how” is where I feel transfer in Basic Writing might be most

Transfer Theory — What might be the “everyday” for a student could potentially be the source for success in the “new” and unfamiliar.

applicable since the curriculum often focuses on improving writing from sentence to paragraph, paragraph to essay. Apart from the expected misspellings and slang in social media posts, how are students writing these posts on a sentence level? How many are declarative statements? How many are complex or compound sentences? And do the thoughts they are joining warrant such a structure? Most likely, students are not thinking about the connection of form and content here, which parallels their lack of concern for it in the classroom. If they lack in both areas, what is transferable? To begin, it is their care for and approach to it. Communicating well in academics is for a grade, but writing well in social media is for a specific purpose or effect, usually not a grade. Also, if they depend on declarative statements so often on social media, does this contribute and explain choppy writing in essays? Do these students have an awareness of audience in either context? Do they feel their writing in the social media context is accomplishing something? I have a few questions running through my head, but my hope is that the answer to one of these might lead to a better understanding of Basic Writing and the Basic Writer.

Being a scholar of Basic Writing is not any more valuable than being a scholar in another area, but the context of this work might have more immediate relevance in the justification and stability of Basic Writing compared to others. Reducing Basic Writers to simply those who need more assistance due to inability and/or traditionally poor instruction in the K-12 setting perpetuates marginalization of an often far more complex and misunderstood group of students. The axiological concerns are vested in not just preventing the ouster of Basic Writing from the university setting, but it is embedded in the idea that stabilizing the importance of this subject might provide some of the same for the larger field of composition. It also gives more identity for and understanding of a group of students needing more than just a little assistance before FYC. They just need their voice heard, and I believe my studies into how we can make them aware of their voice outside academia can transfer to an awareness within it.

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

Adler-Kassner, L., & Harrington, S. (2012). Creation Myths and Flash Points: Understanding Basic Writing through Conflicted Stories. In K. Ritter & P. Kei Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring Composition Studies (pp. 13-35). Boulder, CO: UP of Colorado.

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

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

Clay-Buck, H., & Tuberville, B. (2015). Going off the grid: Re-examining technology in the basic writing classroom. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 31(2), 20-25. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1684790445?accountid=12085

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.

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

Pigg, S., Grabill, J. T., Brunk-Chavez, B., Moore, J. L., Rosinski, P., & Curran, P. G. (2014). Ubiquitous writing, technologies, and the social practice of literacies of coordination. Written Communication, 31(1), 91-117. doi: 10.1177/0741088313514023

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

Ritter, K. (2008). Before Mina Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale, 1920-1960. College Composition And Communication, 60(1), 12-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457043

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

Vie, S. (2015). What’s going on?: Challenges and opportunities for social media use in the writing classroom. The Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 33-44. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1776597451?accountid=12085

Paper #5 Objects of Study

As mentioned in previous posts, my studies have focused on Basic Writing and transfer theory. My affinity for transfer theory emanates from my desire to not just further research for the field, but to examine the ways some of our current pedagogies might have marginalized this group of students, unintentionally of course, and how we might improve our practices to avoid this and empower basic writers using familiar literacies and knowledge from other parts of their lives. However, as I am writing this post, I am reminded of how complex such a study using transfer theory might be considering what might be of particular interest as an object of study, or better yet, objects of study (OoSes).

With transfer theory, at least two or more objects of study need attention in order to assess whether transfer is actually occurring. One object needs to exist in the academic context since this is where I would want to see if literacies or knowledge transfers, and then the social context, most likely a social media platform, would be the other. Some OoSes in the academic context commonly include student papers, emails, prewriting, or drafts while the objects of study in the social context would be “short-form digital writing” (Pigg, Grabill, Brunk-Chavez, Moore, Rosinski & Curran, 2014, p. 108) dealing with posts and messaging, construction of online profiles, or emoticons. Student papers are common OoSes in Composition and Rhetoric research studies because they are primarily what students produce in the classroom and should reveal not only the way they think and communicate that understanding, but also how they do or do not showcase the skills they are learning and developing in class, and social media posts are a current “hot” topic because of their frequency and the way students navigate rhetorical situations in a public and social sphere. Yet, this is still just a broad view of typical OoSes in the field, and the reason social media has become fairly common in current studies is because of its prevalence and consistent usage by basic writers and FYC students. It is the form they communicate most in, which provides a possible wealth of information for researchers to sift through.

When examining these text-based OoSes, I might use a linguistic approach to observe how students construct identity socially through the reuse of particular words such as first person pronouns or culturally homogenous diction and then analyze their academic works to see if they construct identity similarly. Is there a disconnect? If so, what explains the disconnect in how they create identity? Is it pedagogy or curriculum that causes this? Another textual analysis approach could be student use of emoticons in conveying tone and voice in social media posts compared to how students can, or cannot, convey the same emotion in strictly text-based, academic writing. In both scenarios, text-based OoSes serve as the foci for the studies.

Transfer theory and these OoSes have roots in previous calls for improving student literacies and basic writing curriculum. Bartholomae (1986) noted the struggle for basic writers does not necessarily lie in their skills as writers, but it is the unfamiliarity of the context of academics itself and the assignments we ask students to complete within that environment. Specifically, a curriculum that focuses on Standard Written English as the accepted communication marginalizes basic writers who lack comfort with it, but this does not mean they are incapable of coherent, organized, and effective communication altogether. And this is why Bizzell (2000) felt that Social Media, a familiar area of communication for them, should be included in the classroom as traditional curriculum “too often ignores or suppresses the real linguistic resources that all students bring to school” (p. 6). Other scholars documented the resources available in social media such as how instructors can help students examine user profiles and audience identification on Facebook by making them aware of the “filter bubble.” Facebook algorithms restrict posts that appear on feeds to those that are more frequently liked and shared by a user, creating a particular, interested audience or community for that user, which can theoretically transfer to the academic setting in helping students become more aware of discourse communities and audiences (Head, 2016). Yet, others suggested that social media can complicate, not solve, some of the issues of transfer.

Pozorski (2013) argued that using technology in the composition classroom actually “disempowers” the students (p. 190). The difficulty is not in the technology alone, but in the contrast of cultures, “academic and youth/social,” (p.197) that the technology exists in. Vie’s (2015) research echoed this sentiment—though she acknowledged the growing interest in social media as viable and warranted—as her survey of faculty revealed concerns about crossing the professional and personal boundary when including social media in the academic curriculum. Looking at transfer of skills between the two contexts is important, but what cannot be overlooked is the risk of students not understanding that though skills transfer, boundaries with expected behaviors are still present between those contexts.

The abundance of Social Media is clear, but the boundaries often blur when trying to connect to the academic context.

While social media continues to be an increasingly common topic and an OoS in research, it fits in the context of the history of basic writing. Since Shaugnessy’s coining of “basic writer” and the open admissions at colleges and universities during the 1970s has fostered a focus on marginalized students and their ability to “navigate” (Bartholomae, 1986) the academic setting. Examining how to tap into their preexisting skills to foster growth in academia directly ties into the current situation where social media is the most common form of communication in the social setting and the subsequent popularity of transfer theory.

Such research studies will not be simple or easy as evidenced by the concerns of scholars regarding social media in the academic context and the complexities of social media itself (its multimodal composition, multiple OoSes within it, changing platforms, and popularity shelf-life among students). Questions that arise might be what specific part of social media should become the OoS of my study? How can this research remain relevant if the social media platform will most likely disappear or change drastically in a short of time span, possibly before the research is complete? However, the importance of establishing the connection between academic and social contexts and the possibility of empowering basic writers through this is too valuable to overlook.

References

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

Bizzell, P. (2000). Basic Writing and the Issue of Correctness, or, What to Do with “Mixed” Forms of Academic Discourse. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(1), 4-12. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43739259

Head, S. L. (2016). Teaching grounded audiences: Burke’s identification in facebook and composition. Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing, 39, 27-40. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2015.11.006

Pozorski, A. (2013). Podcast paralysis: Inventing the university in the twenty-first century. Writing & Pedagogy, 5(2), 189. doi: 10.1558/wap.v5i2.189

Vie, S. (2015). What’s Going on?: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Media Use in the Writing Classroom. The Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 33-44. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1776597451?accountid=12085

Paper #4: Theories and Methods Used

While it may be easier to examine Objects of Study in a vacuum-like

scenario, such an approach removes the intricacies of what actually happens in the field. Much of the complexity of research in composition and rhetoric is how closely it is tied with pedagogy, which includes consideration of multiple stakeholders and other components that interact with one another, and Basic Writing is most likely a discipline where this complexity might be greatest. Not only do basic writers have unique experiences they bring to the classroom, but the actual definition of basic writer remains localized to each institution. Scholars cannot just focus student writing without acknowledging what contributes to its formation; identity, access, agency, technology, and demographics are some of the factors that must be examined in connection to other parts of the study.

Some common theories in scholarship that try to account for these complexities are transfer theory and grounded theory. One reason for transfer theory’s current popularity is its perceived effectiveness with social media, a popular object of study in composition. By examining the student writing habits in social media sites and their writing in the classroom setting, scholars look for similarities to see if their success in one area translates to the other. While transfer theory takes on many forms, it takes into consideration the social context that contributes to student identity outside and inside the classroom, and this, initially, leads to a heavier preference for qualitative methods in scholarship. A noticeable trend is scholars using case studies, personal accounts of instructors, interviews, and questionnaires to identify patterns that might inform more quantitative data later (Anson, 2016; Clay-Buck & Tuberville, 2015; Vie, 2015). Moore (2012) noted that for quantitative data, researchers typically follow a small group of students over the course of their degree though a longitudinal study or a much larger group for a more limited amount of time. Because transfer theory focuses on the movement, or transference, of skills from one context to another, or lack thereof (Anson, 2016), scholars appear to prefer the longitudinal studies because the student’s initial performance must be noted and then measured over the course of time.

Grounded research follows a similar pattern of using qualitative data to establish a groundwork for quantitative data later, but the actual theory used to generate knowledge emerges from the qualitative data gathered. Vie (2015) followed this approach when researching views and uses of social media in the classroom. Through qualitative data, she established the benefits and challenges of using social media in the classroom. The purpose was to “assess” the status of this subject in the field amidst “burgeoning interest in social media” (p.41). Yet, this structure of gathering qualitative data in one study with the purpose of it leading to more quantitative studies in a separate or later study is not new.

As Dr. Richards (2016, September 21) noted in an interview, after Kathleen Blakely became editor for CCC in 2011 and made a call for more empirical research in the field, there has been more of a push for quantitative data in connection to qualitative data. MacArthur and Philippako (2013) use several forms of qualitative research through interviews, participant observations, and questionnaires to establish changes in writing curriculum. They then use quantitative statistics to measure student writing quality on tests and writing samples to reflect whether the curriculum changes produced positive results in the quality of student writing. The efforts to replicate data and show consistent patterns and truths help establish the field and discipline in the context of the research university (Richards, 2016, September 21).

And while Yancey’s call for more empirical research has led to the increase in quantitative studies, the need for validation already connected to the history of composition in the university. Originally created at Harvard University as a result of expanding admission to more students from public schools and in an effort to bridge the gap between those institutions and higher education, composition and rhetoric remained limited to general education. It was a core course, but it did not necessarily have the renown of other disciplines in the academic setting. Even substantial work and growth in the field over the next century remained constrained by the lack of replicable quantitative data, or the empirical data, that the rest of academia sought.

Data sets — The abundance of data sets is not in question, but the theories and methods to generate knowledge is.

It appears composition and rhetoric is still trying to establish and identify itself, moving more towards empirical data to do so, and with no lack of abundance of data sets, the important focus now is the best theories and methods to use in analyzing this information. With so many variables present in the writing classroom, this will be no easy task, but with the ever-shifting preferences of students regarding different social media, is there a particular theory or method that best captures what is happening here? Will transfer theory continue to be a popular choice when examining how students move from one discourse to another, or will there be a new adaptation or new theory altogether that measures this better?

References

MacArthur, C. A., & Philippakos, Z. A. (2013). Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction in Developmental Writing: A Design Research Project. Community College Review, 41(2), 176-195. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/0091552113484580

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

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

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

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

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.

ENGL 810 PAB 2b

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

ENGL 810 PAB 2a

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.

ENGL 810 Paper #1

While Composition’s broad history allows for multiple origin narratives, finding shared points between them provides a more stable genesis, which later connects specifically to Basic Writing. The most common origin story situates composition studies’ beginning at Harvard towards the end of the nineteenth century when Charles Eliot led the charge for a new composition program. However, the exigencies for this did not composition driven by pedagogical needs; rather, it is a direct

Dr. Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard University (1869-1909)

result of institutional motives for growth, specifically having articulation, which Miller (2010) echoed is a part of current composition classrooms also, and accreditation serving as the focal points for the creation of the FYC (Skinnell, 2014). In order to increase the student population, Harvard chose to look beyond just the traditional private academies and began recruiting from public high schools. Accreditation led to the FYC at Harvard to be implemented on a broader scale as universities worked to establish a consistent curriculum that bridged what high school students learned in the last year of secondary education to the standard courses they would take during the first year at the university (Skinnell, 2014). Harvard’s FYC was innovative, but it was not necessarily the most successful.

While it may be credited with the first FYC program, Harvard and many other Ivy League schools saw their composition programs as a whole fade because they did not adjust to the research methods and terminology introduced after the American university paradigm shift to a more German university model, and it was not until the 1960s that it experienced a resurgence when rhetoric became part of the discipline. Yet The Ohio State University’s composition program, led by Joseph Denney, presents an alternate narrative to the history of composition. As a result of the Morrill Act of 1862 that established Land Grant institutions (OSU was one) and pushed for the “objective inquiry and scientific methods” (McCommiskey, 2006, p. 6) which the traditional humanities, such as those in Ivy League settings mentioned above, struggled to navigate, vocational interests increased. Denney understood the research terminology to be less rigid; thus, “he establish[ed] rhetoric as a significant feature of the university curricula and develop[ed] a writing program that allowed students to work within their field of interest” (Mendenhall, 2011, p. 132). Denney’s contributions present a significant point in Composition’s history and current existence: adaptation is critical to growth.

Like composition’s origin story beginning with Harvard, Basic Writing has a de facto beginning in the work of Mina Shaughnessy (1977), but Ritter (2008) contended that Shaughnessy’s socially-based definition, focusing on marginalized social groups, was inaccurate as some Ivy League schools, including Yale, had Basic Writing students. Even Harvard expected some students to fall below the traditional expectations (Adler-Kassner and Harrington, 2012, p. 34). The university system as a whole experienced the effects of the paradigm shift to the research university model; thus, Basic Writing, while not always identified clearly, had some form of existence in the university system as early as the early to mid-twentieth century, shortly after the rise of Composition studies.

So how does this all connect? How does the genesis of Composition in general explain the origin of Basic Writing? Again, the exigencies of institutional growth expanded the search for prospective students at institutions of higher education near the end of the nineteenth century and later, and with a broader base including public high schools and an increased number of accepted applicants, the disparity between their writing abilities became greater. This in addition to newly formed accreditation agencies and the paradigm shift to the German university research model led to created “standards,” of which some of the students fell below: enter Basic Writers. So whereas Shaughnessy (1977) sought to define basic writers according to social markers, Basic Writing’s history, as it connects to the broader history of Composition, suggests that institutional motives and created standards define Basic Writers without cultural or social limitations: “Looking at basic writing through the lens of modern assessment theory, we see clearly that basic writers are defined not by any objective criteria but by relative criteria used, in contexts as disparate as Ivy League institutions and local community colleges, for well over a century to single out some students” (Adler-Kassner and Harrington, 2012, p. 30). Such a history is true, but to bypass statistics showing a higher rate of minorities and nontraditional students needing basic writing courses would be problematic.

Why do these connections matter to the current debates in the field (#810 course goals)? To better understand our current issues, we must understand the past that got us here. Scholarship has questioned when Basic Writing arrived, yet the current struggle for Basic Writing is not “does it exist?” but “where will it exist?” as recent educational reform pushes to relegate such classes at community colleges, cutting funding of the course at four-year universities. While Basic Writing is largely a product a paradigm shift at the end of the nineteenth century, it faces significant challenges as a result of a new one.

References

Adler-Dassner, L., & Harrington, S. (2012). Creation Myths and Flash Points: Understanding Basic Writing through Conflicted Stories. In K. Ritter & P. Kei Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring Composition Studies (pp. 13-35). Boulder, CO: UP of Colorado.

McCommiskey, B. (2006). Introduction. In B. McCommiskey (Ed.), English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s) (pp.1-65). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Mendenhall, A. S. (2011). Joseph V. Denney, the Land-Grant Mission, and Rhetorical Education at Ohio State: An Institutional History. College English, 74(2), 131-156. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23052356

Miller, T. (2010). The Evolution of College English. Pittsburgh, PA: U of Pittsburgh P.

Ritter, K. (2008). Before Mina Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale, 1920-1960. College Composition And Communication, 60(1), 12-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457043

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

Skinnell, R. (2014). Harvard, Again: Considering Articulation and Accreditation in Rhetoric and Composition’s History. Rhetoric Review, 33(2), 95-112. Doi: 10.1080/07350198.2014.884406