ENGL 810 – Officle 4032

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

ENGL 810 Paper 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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