Important Conversations: Blog Summary and Reflection

                The assigned readings for this course, the readings I chose for my own blog, and the readings and reviews of my peers contribute to an image of rhetoric and composition as a field alive with important conversations. Taken together, these readings connect to a number of threshold concepts vital to the effective teaching of first year composition (FYC). Among these, one concept appeared most frequently; multiple literacies and multiple Englishes (to use Canagarajah’s language) deserve respect and power in FYC. A connected concept, addressed by several in my group, is that basic writers can succeed in FYC with well-designed support.

                The idea of a multiliteracies is not new to the field; the New London Group discussed such an approach in their 1994 meeting (63). Numerous publications since, however, demonstrate that the academy still has not fully and successfully embraced multiliteracies. In her first blog, King reviews J. Michael Rifenburg’s “Student-Athletes, Prior Knowledge, and Threshold Concepts,” in which Rifenberg explores the unique literacies of student-athletes. While Rifenberg helps students make connections between writing and body movement, Jennifer A. Hudson connects students to an multiliteracies and a variety of modalities by using technology. King, in her third blog, reviews Hudson’s “Writing, Technology and Writing Technologies: Developing Multiple Literacies in First-Year College Composition Students.” McGarry, in his third blog, reviews Bomer and Maloch’s “Research and Policy: Diverse Local Literacies and Standardizing Policies.” Bomer and Maloch encourage a shift away from standardizing education at a national level toward, as McGarry phrases it, a “shift back into the local and community sphere.” Class readings that support multiliteracies include articles by Reid and Kroll, Canagaragah, Kei Matsuda, and Downs and Wardle.

                Several of my group members and I explored an idea closely related to multiliteracies: translingualism and multiple Englishes. In my second blog, I reviewed Toth’s “Beyond Assimilation: Tribal Colleges, Basic Writing, and the Exigencies of Settler Colonialism,” in which she discusses her success in teaching FYC at Diné College by connecting with the culture of Native American students. Konstantinou explores Appalachian English in her second blog, a review of Luhman’s “Appalachian English Stereotypes: Language Attitudes in Kentucky.” Luhman’s research revealed that the Appalachian accent is frequently stereotyped as an indicator of low intelligence. In his review of Ted Kesler’s “Teachers’ Texts in Culturally Responsive Teaching,” McGarry considers his own text choices, theorizing that a focus on teaching the traditional, largely monolinguistic, English literature cannon may negatively impact students.

                Another topic several of my peers and I chose to explore is how basic writers can best be supported in FYC. This topic connects to multiple literacies and Englishes because trouble with standard written English is often what gets students labeled “basic writers,” a label that may result in their being excluded from the FYC classroom. In my first blog, I review Cleary’s “How Antonio Graduated On Out of Here: Improving the Success of Adult Students with an Individualized Writing Course.” Cleary shows how struggling writers at DePaul University who were enrolled in an individualized workshop persisted in college at a rate higher than the national average. Rodby and Fox discuss similarly successful outcomes for basic writers at California State University, Chico. In my fifth blog, I review their article “Basic Work and Material Acts: The Ironies, Discrepancies, and Disjunctures of Basic Writing and Mainstreaming.” Rodby and Fox here explain how mainstreaming basic writers while simultaneously supporting them via enrollment in an adjunct workshop resulted in the majority of students studied passing FYC the first time.

                 In her third blog post, Konstantinou reviews Penrose’s “Academic Literacy Perceptions and Performance: Comparing First-Generation and Continuing-Generation College Students.” Though first-generation students are not necessarily basic writers, Penrose finds they do come to college having been exposed to a significantly narrower range of vocabulary than their continuing-generation peers, and this is reflected “not only on measures or general academic preparedness but more specifically in their perceptions of their own academic literacy skills” (Penrose 441). In her first blog, a review of Jesnek’s “Peer Editing in the 21^st Century College Classroom: Do Beginning Composition Students Truly Reap the Benefits?” Keel addresses another issue weaker writers may face. In short, Jesnek found that rarely are basic writers able to significantly improve their drafts as a result of peer editing, particularly when paired with a writer having similarly weak skills. Additionally, when a weak and strong writer were paired, the strong writer often felt resentment at having given but not received valuable feedback.

                Reflecting upon my own pedagogy in light of the readings summarized above, I am challenged in some aspects and affirmed in others. On the topic of linguistic diversity, I express respect and grant power to multiple literacies and Englishes in my FYC classes; when evaluating essays, I only mark a non-standard word or phrasing choice if I think that particular student writer would benefit from my doing so. Often, my second language learners ask me to point out non-standard features of their writing, but I do not penalize for non-standard choices as long as the student’s meaning is still clear. I do, however, need to advocate for a broader understanding and acceptance of multiple literacies outside of my courses; there are departments in which, to borrow Kei Matsuda’s phrasing, “the myth of linguistic homogeneity” is alive and well. I also feel that I assist basic writers well. They are mainstreamed, and I have seen students with weak writing skills make significant improvements when I guide them via personal writing goals. My department did, for two semesters, implement a mandatory workshop for FYC students who tested as having basic skills, but we saw little gain in student success as a result. Cleary’s article, however, as well as Rodby and Fox’s show me where our workshop likely went wrong in terms of time, content, and format, and after more research, I do feel advocating for a revised version is something I can and should do to better support basic writers at McPherson College. 

Works Cited

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. "The Place Of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued."
            College Composition & Communication 57.4 (2006): 586-619. Education Research 
            Complete. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

 Downs, Douglas, and Elizabeth Wardle. "Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions:   
             (Re)Envisioning 'First-Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies.'" College
              Composition & Communication 58.4 (2007): 552-584. ERIC. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.   
  

Keel, Crystal. “Michael Bunn, Motivating Students to ‘Read and Write’ in College Composition.”

              Teaching College Composition 664: Annotated Bibliography, 3 Oct. 2016,            
              ckeel664.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.   

Kei Matsuda, Paul. “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition.” College 
             English. 16.8 (2006): 637-651. ERIC. Web. 30 Aug. 2016. 

               

King, Liza. “A Multiliteracies Approach to Teaching First Year College Composition: Article Review
            #3." Liza King’s Academic Blog, 25 Sept. 2016, lizacking.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct.
            2016.

---. The Translingual Approach to Teaching Writing: Article Review #1.” Liza King’s Academic Blog,
            11 Sept. 2016, lizacking.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

Konstantinou, Terri. “Blog Post #2.” Terri Konstantinou: English 664, 3 Oct. 2016,     
             terrikeng664.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.         
            

---. “Blog Post #3.” Terri Konstantinou: English 664, 26 Sept. 2016, terrikeng664.blogspot.com/,

             Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

Martinez, Ami. “Article Review 1.” A Pedagogical Pilgrimage, 11 Sept. 2016,  
             apedagogicalpilgrimage.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.               

---. “Article Review 2.” A Pedagogical Pilgrimage, 18 Sept. 2016,
             apedagogicalpilgrimage.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

---. “Article Review 5.” A Pedagogical Pilgrimage, 16 Oct. 2016,
             apedagogicalpilgrimage.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

McGarry, Joshua. “Blog #3: Research and Policy: Diverse Local Literacies and Standardizing
             Policies." College Comp. Resources, Research, and Thresholds, 26 Sept. 2016,
             ccrrat.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

               

---. “Blog #4: Teachers’ Texts in Culturally Responsive Teaching.” College Comp. Resources, 
             Research, and Thresholds, 3 Oct. 2016, ccrrat.blogspot.com/, Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

Penrose, Ann M. "Academic Literacy Perceptions and Performance: Comparing First-Generation and
            Continuing-Generation College Students." Research in the Teaching of English 36.4 (2002):  
            437-461. Education Research Complete. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

Reid, Joy, and Barbara Kroll. "Designing And Assessing Effective Classroom Writing Assignments  
             for NES and ESL Students." Journal Of Second Language Writing 4.1 (1995): 17-41. ERIC.  
             Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

The New London Group. "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures." Harvard
              Educational Review 66.1 (1996): 60. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

 

 Article Review 5

Rodby, Judith, and Tom Fox. “Basic Work and Material Acts: The Ironies, Discrepancies, and

            Disjunctures of Basic Writing and Mainstreaming.” Journal of Basic Writing 19.1 (2000):

            84-99. ERIC. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.       

            In this article, Judith Rodby and Tom Fox detail their work with basic writers at California State University (CSU), Chico. Their central argument is that first year composition (FYC) can only be authentically and effectively taught within the context of the FYC classroom. Their complementary argument is that basic writers will learn and display only basic writing when isolated into a traditionally taught, non-credit bearing remedial course (84).

            In support of their central argument, Rodby and Fox first briefly trace the history of basic writing courses at CSU, Chico, focusing on the demise of such courses in the early 1990’s. Created approximately twenty years prior, basic writing courses were supposed to broaden institutional access but in practice did the opposite: “[S]tudent and teacher complaints showed that our basic writing courses had been backfiring. Instead of increasing student access, they had discouraged students. . .” (85). After experimenting unsatisfactorily with curriculum changes as well as an opt out path for students, CSU, Chico did away with basic writing courses, based not just on the discouragement of students and faculty, but also on the body of research connecting writing with context (87).

            After the abolishment of basic writing classes, the adjunct workshop model here described by Rodby and Fox was instituted at CSU, Chico. The authors acknowledge this model as a compromise with administrative authorities; the adjunct workshop bears no credit and must be retaken by any student whose writing does not meet specified FYC criteria by semester’s end (88). However, the authors do offer valuable insights gleaned from the FYC plus adjunct workshop combination. Briefly paraphrased, these are: a skill is gained by the practice of that skill, and not some other, supposedly prior skill; the teaching and learning of writing cannot be effectively divided into levels; and the second language writer is and should be regarded as distinct from the native-speaking basic writer.

            Rodby and Fox then explain the format of the adjunct workshop and describe a typical workshop day. This description includes some chaos, with students bringing in an assortment of assignments, misunderstandings, and frustrations from different FYC sections. Readily apparent in this description, however, is the productivity of that chaos. The workshop and the adjunct instructor provide structure and support, guiding students in successful negotiation of not just FYC assignments, but also broader academic challenges; 86 percent of students enrolled in workshop pass FYC on the first attempt (93).

            For its clear and detailed explanation of a successful model by which to better aid basic writers, this article is a valuable resource for my peers and scholars in the field. Working at a small college where the “professor-power” just isn’t available to divide FYC students by skill level, I once felt we, as an English department, were failing basic writers by mainstreaming them. Though I’ve learned to help these writers via personal writing goals, reading research such as this bolsters my pedagogical confidence that mainstreaming basic writers is a sound practice, particularly when augmented by an effective workshop.