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.

Writing
The commonality is that we expect all students to write, but their confidence and abilities in doing so only seem to exist in one context without tapping into other areas they might feel more confident in.

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, 2015Vie, 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 #4: Theories and Methods Used

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

Methods
Almost as essential as data itself is the theory and methodologies used during research.

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, 2015Vie, 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

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

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

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

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

PAB 4b

Pop Warner
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.

Community of Practice
Martin struggled in a new Community of Practice context, which can be true for any level of writer.

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

 

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

References

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

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

PAB 4a

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

References

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

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

ENGL 810 Paper 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.

Big Data
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.

Transfer
Is transfer always successful? And when does it happen?
Photo Credit: Africa Studio

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

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.  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.