PAB posts – 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

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 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

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.

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 PAB 1b

Errors and Expectations

Most people cannot mention Mina Shaughnessy without including “basic writer” in the same context, and Ritter’s (2008) article, “Before Mina Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale, 1920-1960,” acknowledged just that; however, Ritter (2008) delved further into the history of “basic writer” to combat some overgeneralizations, including Shaghnessy’s (1977), regarding who that is. While most do not associate “basic writer” with Ivy League schools, Ritter (2008) demonstrated just that when discussing the “Awkward Squad,” a group of basic writers who received additional yet isolated instruction to prepare them for the coursework, at Yale University. What Ritter (2008) argued is the idea that this group derives from a student population of privileged, white-male students, which revealed Shaughnessy’s definition of “basic writer” in the 1970s as somewhat limited. While the Civil Rights movement influenced Shaughnessy’s definition of “basic writer” due to the influx of African American and female students at American universities (1977), Ritter (2008) noted the paradigm shift to more German structured research universities and the efforts by those institutions to increase student enrollment for financial stability was the reason for earlier “basic writers” in the early 1900s. Yet her work also detailed how the curriculum of the basic writer course evolved, showing focus not only on grammar instruction but also on argumentation and literary appreciation. Ritter (2008) contended that this mixed curriculum exhibited early signs of modern basic composition courses, moving from “drill and grill” to more nuanced approaches.

The explanation Ritter (2008) provided, which also connects to Mendenhall’s (2011) discussion on Composition in the American university at the turn of the century, highlighted the early pedagogy of composition and how it eventually exhibited signs of a paradigm shift closer to the middle of the 20^th century. Yet what I really appreciated about the article is how Ritter (2008) went beyond Shaughnessy (1977), who many credit with bringing the “basic writer” into the discussion and identifying him, and documented earlier basic writers created by the shift, thus connecting their narrative to the much broader history of Composition studies. . While cultural environments must be included in our discussion of basic writers, Ritter (2008) noted that this cannot be the only factor in identifying them. I currently teach several Basic Writer courses, so seeing how the history of Composition connected to an area I teach on a daily basis helped me visualize where current pedagogical practices came from. This, in addition to Mendenhall (2011) and my prior knowledge of Harvard’s composition program, exhibited different experiences with a common event, which was the shift to a German university model and the American university’s efforts to adjust. While OSU adapted under the leadership of Denney (Mendenhall, 2011), Yale and Harvard both seemingly struggled to adapt. The mixed curriculum in the Basic Writing classroom was a result of traditional practices and the push for the FYC. Part of the course goals for ENGL 810 is to analyze the complexities of English studies, and just between the articles I have read, I can see how complex the situation can be for one field, especially if this much diversity existed between how three universities approached the same change. What I have gathered from the readings has been the danger in limiting terms to basic, or even convoluted, definitions because this more often excludes and hinders progress in Composition studies.

Reference List

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

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.

ENGL 810 PAB 1a

Many of the histories of Composition studies in America focused on the Hill and the First Year Composition course at Harvard University; however, Mendenhall (2011) provided a somewhat contrasting view of the composition’s history as seen in a localized context of The Ohio State University, particularly the impact of Joseph V. Denney. Mendenhall (2011) documented how OSU does not share the common decline of compositional studies at other universities around the turn of the century because of Denney’s recognition of the flexible definitions of “science” in connection to research and how this allowed for the department to evolve and thrive instead of struggling to fit a rigid educational structure. As many other universities followed the German model of a research university, OSU followed suit, but with the focus on meeting the needs of the local student community, which meant providing both liberal and technical education to generate educated civilians (largely because it was also a Land-grant institution). As other universities struggled to bridge the gap between traditional literary studies and the new FYC, Denney did so successfully as he “subordinated taste in composition” to develop a stronger sense of a “rhetorical situation” the writer might have encountered (Mendenhall, 2011, p. 139). This article provides a different perspective of Composition and Rhetoric at the turn of the century compared to the common narrative of its history, which is Composition and Rhetoric faded until a resurgence towards the second half of the 20^th century.

Mendenhall’s (2011) work is noteworthy for a history of Composition and Rhetoric because it documented that the supposed decline of the field was not all encompassing and most likely misinterpreted as such. Because of how universities defined certain research terminology such as “real, practical, and scientific” (Mendenhall, 2011, p. 137) with specific and rigid definitions, they relegated Rhetoric and Composition to obscurity, forcing it to change some of its terms and combine with other areas such as literary theory or criticism; thus, it “disappeared.” Denney’s adaptive approach to how he defined some of these research terms connects to our ENGL 810 class discussions regarding how solidified views of the field actually limits what it should probably include. The question of “What is English Studies?” is still current just as it appeared to be a century ago; the more scholars try to solidify a definition, the more likely they are to eliminate part of the field. The field is flexible, especially as new technologies change how composition happens. Essentially, Composition and Rhetoric’s history lies in the definitions we have created for it, which is true for much of what has happened in the past century. My question now is what other universities follow more of the OSU example during the early twentieth century and if they are Land-grant universities as well. Additionally, how might our current definitions shift as a result of changing university models now? After reading Mendenhall’s (2011) article, my initial response to this might be that the situation is similar to what English departments faced before: with concerns for the university as a whole coming first, altering definitions of what English studies includes might be a form of self-preservation, but the “disappearing act” mentioned with Harvard at the turn of the century is much less likely due to the recognition of diversity within the field. While this article was not the Harvard-focused history that many other sources provided, I felt I had more breadth of knowledge regarding this pivotal point in Composition’s history and understanding what exactly happened at many of the Ivy League institutions.

Reference List