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.