CompTheory@UD

An Open Letter to All Beginning Graduate Assistants, Embarking on Their First Semester of Teaching FYC:

2008-04-27T14:33:00.000-07:00

Laura Edwards

When I was hired to teach freshman composition, I was elated. And terrified. I’d never even taken Composition, and my teaching experience was with high school freshman, a very different kind of freshman than the ones I would be facing now. In a panic, I spent a lot of time on campus those three weeks, talking to colleagues and studying their syllabi– I even read through the recommended textbook, taking notes in the form of an outline throughout. Yet, all of these practices pale in comparison to one piece of advice given by a colleague; when asked if she had any help for a newcomer, she went to the wall of books in her office, pulled a worn tome from the shelf, and placed it gingerly in my hands. “Read this.” She said, and I looked down to find A Writer Teachers Writing by Donald M. Murray.

What I learned from that book was invaluable and led me into the first semester, if not more steady, at least more adept. It is with my own tale in mind, that I write this letter, to share why Donald Murray is one theorist whose work every FYC professor should be acquainted with, and to make your job a bit easier, I will break down exactly which of his ideas were most helpful to me that first year and the ones beyond.

First, why Donald Murray? To begin with, Mr. Murray is a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and even more importantly for the purposes of this essay, a seasoned veteran at teaching FYC. He’s chaired departments and written multiple articles and books on his teaching methods, and out of those, I’ve pulled what I believe are the two most important aspects of Mr. Murray’s teachings: cultivating surprise in your students’ writing and writing with and for your students. These are two pieces of FYC that may not be as readily obvious as others, which is why I believe them most important to bring to your attention before you begin your career as a FYC teaching assistant.

The first method of teaching, cultivating surprise, occurs when a writer begins writing one way and realizes early in the process that there may be another topic more deserving of his time, or some other angle he hadn’t considered. In fact, it is Murray’s contention that “we write to surprise ourselves” (A Writer Teaches 7). Writing to cultivate that surprise, to learn something new about our topic and to decipher what’s most important for the writing project is an invaluable tool for our students’ arsenals.

How do we go about cultivating surprise in our students’ work? Murray began with a period of “incubation” (Berkenkotter 163) in his own writing as evidenced in a study done by Dr. Carol Berkenkotter, utilizing Mr. Murray as the case subject. This period of incubation was sometimes extravagantly long, even developing into years before some projects were concretely begun (Response 170). What is important to note when speaking of the pedagogy of surprise, also termed “responsive teaching” by Murray, is that the incubation period is not a once and for all process; in fact, it is after a writer begins writing and then questions what is on the page, that a new period of incubation, and with it, a “twist” or surprise in the direction of the project can occur. To write a draft and never pause and consider what is on the page and where the work is going is to deny the writer the pleasure of surprise in her writing.

But does this happen naturally for our student writers? Would that it did, but in most cases, it does not. Murray’s answer to this dilemma is “mini” one-on-one conferences with students, in which a student will bring a very rough draft or even a sketch of ideas for the paper. Upon arrival to the conference, Murray would ask his students very basic follow-up questions on what they have written so far, such as, “What did you learn from this piece of writing? What do you intend to do in the next draft? What surprised you in the draft? Where is the piece of writing taking you? What do you like best in the piece of writing?” and finally, “What questions do you have of me” (Learning by Teaching 159)? By doing this, Murray pulls the students out of the traditional role of an inexperienced student writer who tends to write a rough draft and revise on a sentence level into the tasks of the more experienced writer who questions general direction and the larger theme of the piece. What is most interesting about this technique is that Murray found his students asking the questions of themselves and answering them before he had the chance to ask (Learning by Teaching 159). He was teaching the students to revise with the “big picture” in mind, a needful part of any writing task and an ability which can be transferred across the curriculum.

Next, Murray encouraged his colleagues to put down their red pens and pick up a pencil to write with their students. As stated previously, Murray himself was a writer. Not only was he a journalist, but he also wrote several books, many on writing and teaching writing. He wrote two autobiographical novels, one following the loss of a child and the other after he experienced a heart attack.

Murray’s admonition to teachers to write was two-fold: first, he encouraged all teachers to write outside of the classroom, whether it be fiction or academic writing; and secondly, he promoted writing in the classroom along with the students. Roy Peter Clark, in a recent tribute to Murray states, “I can boil that knowledge [given to Clark by Murray] down into a series of statements about writing [one of which is]: That teachers should write with and for their students, in the classroom and the newsroom” (Poynter Online December 31, 2006). Murray didn’t only write outside of the classroom, but he practiced what he preached and wrote with his students, working through many of the same practices he assigned them, reading them his outcomes, good and bad, and discussing what made them so. He recounted one such occasion when he wrote to the same prompt he’d given his students in Expecting the Unexpected. When the timed protocol was up, he shared what he had with his students. He stated that the result was two-fold for him: “Support. I shared it with the class when they shared theirs, and they laughed. [and] Doubt. Since they laughed, I worried […]” Expecting 141). He goes on to describe how reading to his students impacted his work, helping to change his ideas, reform drafts.

One can only imagine the many benefits this practice had for his students. To see their teacher as one of them, experiencing the same self doubt and realizing that it is okay to fail in those early drafts (A Writer Teaches 8-9) enables a student to try, to write without heavy expectations, to be open to surprise, and to realize that writing isn’t a magical “taught” formula, but a daily exercise of revision, rethinking, and rewriting.

So, when you stand before your students this fall, remember to ask the tough questions; teach your students to think beyond sentence level grammar and into the heart of their projects; and write with them in the classroom and for them outside of it, sharing your failures and successes equally and without shame. And should you find yourself questioning this most humble of callings, remember how Murray answered the question, “Why teach writing?”:

"I continue to teach writing, because I will never learn to teach writing – even when I write books on how to write and how to teach. I can only continue to experiment with ways of creating an environment in which I can get out of the way of my students and watch – applauding – as they teach themselves the craft none of us will ever learn." (A Writer Teaches 245)

Works Cited
Berkenkotter, Carol. “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer.” College Composition and Communication. 34.2 (1983): 156-169.
Clark, Roy Peter. “The Take and The Give: A Tribute to Don Murray.” Poynter Online.
December 31, 2006. The Poynter Institute. April 21, 2008. .
Madigan, Chris. “Applying Donald Murray’s ‘Responsive Teaching.’” College Composition and Communication. 39.1 (1988): 74-77.
Murray, Donald M. Expecting the Unexpected: Teaching Myself– and Others– to Read and
Write. New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1989.
---. Learning by Teaching, Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching. New Hampshire:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1982.
---. “Response of a Laboratory Rat– or, Being Protocoled.” College Composition and Communication. 34.2 (1983): 156-169.
---. A Writer Teaches Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985.

What's the Problem With Academic Discourse? A Review of Literature

2008-04-27T10:42:00.000-07:00

Juliet MonBeck

The goal of Composition Studies has historically been a contested one, characterized by a lack of consensus in not only naming a goal but also in the methodologies that have been put in place in order to achieve a goal if it did exist. Ostensibly, the main goal could be defined in simple terms, such as “to teach students to write.” However, both the simplicity and applicability of this goal are complicated by details like who is being taught, what texts students are being taught to write, and how that process is accomplished. Most scholars agree that teaching students to write successfully in post-secondary academic settings requires the use of an “academic discourse,” or the possession of “academic literacy.” Therefore, it would seem a simple matter of teaching students the conventions of academic discourse and giving them enough practice so these conventions could be sufficiently internalized in order to give all students the essential tools they would need to succeed at the university level. Once again, the problem is not as simple as it appears. The conventions of academic discourse are those of Standard English, particularly Standard Written English, and these conventions continually evolve from the practices of the dominant culture. What happens when members of non-dominant cultures (and social classes) are asked to adopt and internalize the discourse conventions of the academy? In this situation the educator must ask herself not only how to teach the conventions of academic discourse but, also, is it politically, ethically, and morally viable to go about doing so? And, if teaching academic discourse is discarded on ethical grounds, are whole groups of people being further marginalized by having their voices silenced within the academy and also by denying them the social and intellectual mobility that is the promise of higher education? The problem that seems inherent in the political ramifications of the process of enculturation into academic discourse has been tackled by many scholars in the hope that it can be reconciled.

What's the Problem?
The modern teacher of composition has a classroom full of students with diverse identities and it is her job to enable all of these diverse individuals to be able to understand and use academic discourse in order to be able to successfully move on to higher education. The problem lies in the fact that students who are members of dominant culture are privileged in that the rules of their own speech and discourse communities share virtually identical linguistic rules, shared norms, and rules as to the “appropriacy of utterances” as academic discourse while other students' speech and discourse communities are at a far greater remove from the conventions of academic discourse (Bizzell, “Foundationalism...” 48-49; Swales 23). Therefore, students who are at a cultural and linguistic remove from academic discourse must first learn, and be able to use fluently, the conventions that differ from their individual experience. In order for a teacher to be successful at this goal it is essential to ask how one acquires knowledge of academic discourse and its genres. To briefly and succinctly sum up the vast theoretical work and research on this subject is to say that a student must acquire enough background knowledge of general academic discourse in order to enter more specific discourse communities as a novice and to progress along a continuum toward expert status, within those communities' genres, in a process characterized by assimilation, imitation, enculturation, and internalization (Bawarshi; Bizzel, “Foundationalism...”; Carter; Pare; Swales). The terms used to describe the process are so connotatively loaded when applied to identity that it is easy to see why it is easy to come the conclusion that “[m]astery of the socially privileged academic discourse may indeed threaten students with cultural assimilation and the loss of their native discourses” (46).

How the field of Rhetoric and Composition, as well as Education, address this problem of assimilation, loss, and equity of opportunity within the educational system are as diverse as the students the problem addresses. The disparity of approaches to the problem, however, are mostly theoretical and, as of yet, have little impact on the pedagogy of actual teachers or the experiences of actual students (Fernstein 39). Perhaps the reason that so little of the theoretical work done on the subject reaches practice is that there seem to be three different ways that the problem is approached. First, that the problem being addressed is the wrong problem to be focusing on. Second, that there is no problem, or if there is now, the problem will work itself out in predictable ways. And, third, that the problem is indeed as it has been outlined in this introduction but, the solutions for the problem are varied and somewhat nebulous.

Addressing the Wrong Problem?
The vast majority of the work in Composition addressing the problem of academic discourse and identity is addressed toward the differences that exist in students' academic and nonacademic lives with the emphasis on the differences in meaning making with regard to “language practices, rhetorical traditions, worldviews, and ideologies” (Soliday 402). The field of Composition has asserted that diversity and difference can be addressed by transforming ideas about diversity into “institutionally transformative pedagogy” within which students can “position themselves in ways that don't violate their own cultural integrity” (Soliday 402). However, the problem of meaning making and identity may not be the most pressing issue (or even one of the most pressing issues) in the struggle of non-dominant students to be successful both in the use of academic discourse and higher education in general. Mary Soliday argues that it is social class rather than linguistic or cultural diversity that effectively keeps non-dominant students from succeeding (in the same numbers as their dominant peers) in the world of higher education. She argues that the struggle of working-class students does not have to involve dissonance between identities but rather that hours worked outside of school, family obligations, lack of immersion and continuity in the educational process, and lack of money for supplies and tuition are functionally the barriers to success (403-409). “In other words, we don't affirm a student's inability to buy a computer or textbooks in the same way as that we affirm that student's street slang as a creative, oppositional use of language” (Soliday 404). Furthermore, the effort to develop pedagogies that only respect and affirm the diversity of language and epistemologies will do little to combat the problem because there is no real evidence that changing the way in which language is used or received in academic discourse will do anything to change the essentially selective functions of higher education (and academic discourse) that serve to maintain class distinctions.

Perhaps another way in which the wrong problem is being addressed when focusing on the linguistic and epistemological struggles of identity in students primarily is that the field of Rhetoric and Composition does not itself practice what it preaches. The aforementioned lack of goal in the field has resulted in a multitude of different approaches, theories, philosophies, and so on that all exist within one field (Anson 246-7). As the importance of the field is being recognized in colleges and universities, this dissonance has made itself known in the “disciplinary persona” of the field.

"...[M]uch writing in the field of composition tries desperately to sound scholarly. Because the field maintains so many bond to other disciplines, we end up wearing discursive hats [...] The more insecure we feel, the more we gravitate toward discourse that alienates in order to seem inclusive, that invites people to understand itself while closing the door on those who do not already belong. Scholarly discourse is often unapproachable. [...] People write to sound important, to give themselves legitimacy.Ironically, the frustration of potential new members reading unnecessarily complex or academic discourse may well have its source in the anxieties of the writers themselves who, a bit farther along, still feel less than affiliated." (Anson 259)

Seen in this light, how can a discipline that purports to aim at allowing inclusion of identity and diversity of voice within education be effective at solving this problem when itself embodies the very problem it is battling. An argument could be made that the reason why theories of writing don't seem to materialize in practice is because the discipline that is doing the theorizing does not seem to value the importance of the findings in its own practice. Therefore, the problem of academic discourse seems to be addressing in a hypocritical way. In other words, it should be theoretically acceptable to allow for diversity of identity and voice for education in general, but this diversity is not of enough importance, or perhaps is not seen as intellectually rigorous enough, to be allowed in the field of Rhetoric and Composition. This illuminates a secondary problem as well. If most of the work of teaching, the actual work of pedagogy, is performed by graduate students and high school teachers who are not members of the field, and may feel alienated and “less than affiliated” themselves by the field's discourse, how is the theoretical work ever supposed to be translated into practice? This leads to the conclusion that perhaps the field should be addressing the problem within the discipline before making definitive statements or theories about how everyone else should address the problem.

Problem? What Problem?
Another approach to the problem of academic discourse and identity is to assert that while there currently is a problem, that there are sufficient ways to deal with the problem already in motion and that through the gradual passing of time the problems will be resolved. One way of framing the issue in this way is to assert that, yes, cultural hegemony and academic discourse are bound up together but this should not be a problem (Clifford 396). The reason this is not a problem is because of the way that hegemony and power are related.

"Since power is also decentered in our culture, finding its energy in properly socialized subjects, the most ambitious undertaking is not to storm the hegemonic barricades. Instead we should do the intellectual work we know best: helping students to read and write and think in ways that both resist domination and exploitation and encourage self-consciousness about who they are and can be in the social world." (Clifford 397)

In this model, the use of academic discourse in the way that students “read and write and think” will enable them to resist cultural hegemony and open up possibilities for a changed future. Therefore, academic discourse becomes the tool through which students are capable of resisting the assimilation and loss associated with academic discourse.

Another way of framing the discussion of academic discourse and identity is to assert that it is individuals who bring about change to academic discourse and its conventions and that this change is happening all the time (Bizzell, “The Intellectual Work...”; Delpit). Therefore, as diverse individuals are assimilated into the conventions of academic discourse, it will change (is changing) to allow for more diversity Lisa Delpit argues this point using several examples of successfully enculturated individuals in support of this point and recommending that teachers show explicitly how academic discourse has and is changing and how the individuals contributing to that discourse are diverse as well. Another set of examples used to support the hypothesis that the dissonance between identity and academic discourse will resolve itself is that of dominant (white male) authors using alternate modes of discourse in scholarly writing (Bizzel, “The Intellectual Work...”). In this situation, the assumption is that these “mixed” or alternate forms of discourse must still be carrying out the “intellectual work of the academy” in the same manner as traditional discourse, and that these alternate modes are generally accepted, or else dominant writers would not take the risk of engaging in them (Bizzell, “The Intellectual Work...” 74). No matter what measure is used to judge the changing nature of academic discourse the assumption remains the same; that the state of discourse in the academy will change as the demographics of the individuals at work in the academy change.

Houston, We Have a Problem, How Do We Fix It?
Many scholars do believe that the problem with academic discourse and identity exists as it was presented in the introduction to this paper. The assimilation and loss that is associated with the acquisition of academic discourse remains a question that elicits a common theme in way of a solution among these theorists. Most scholars, those that do not agree that the problem will fix itself, come to the conclusion that the only corrective to the problem is to make explicit the political act that occurs when teaching academic discourse and writing (Bizzell, “Foundationalism...”; Fernstein; Giroux). Unfortunately, the details of what making explicit the political act of teaching entails are a little vague and so is the desired effect that this shift will bring about. The emphasis on this explicit politicizing of writing usually comes at the end of an article exploring the effects of teaching academic discourse and, as of yet, has no real basis in widespread practice and is not emphasized at all in typical courses designed to teach teachers to teach.

One theory that does explicitly offer a concrete way to include making the political act explicit in the teaching of writing is Henry Giroux's “border pedagogies.” Giroux asserts that while the theoretical world has changed dramatically with the lens of postmodernism and the waning of modernism, pedagogy has essentially remained the same in classrooms. Border pedagogy is offered as a way of emphasizing (and making explicit) the “primacy of a politics in which teachers assert rather than retreat from pedagogies they utilize in dealing with the various differences represented by the students who come in to their classes” (61). The borders that are being addressed in Giroux's conception of pedagogy are the gaps between theory and practice, academic discourse and identity, and affirming diversity and intellectual rigor. Through the use of border pedagogy Giroux envisions a “radical democracy, or a place where the needs of those being taught outweigh those of scholars or institutions” (66).

Conclusion
The problem with academic discourse is not simply an issue of power, politics, and theory. It is also an issue of practice, pedagogy, and standards. In order to find a solution that actually mediates the apparent dichotomies between these two statements it is imperative that scholars look at the issue of diversity in more ways than just linguistic or epistemological difference to include the realities of class within their institutions. New ways of envisioning the use of academic discourse in the field of Rhetoric and Composition and the ways in which affiliation is either encouraged or discouraged within it need to be addressed so that the gap between theory and practice can be closed. However, the scholarship on the problematic nature of academic discourse and possible correctives to the process of enculturation do not seem to take these two issues very seriously, or at least with not as much vigor as issues of meaning-making. Furthermore, there is another major problem with the solutions to mediating the dissonance between identity and academic discourse that is not addressed. First, that the bureaucratic nature of educational systems in this country and federally mandated “standards” influence pedagogy more than theory. In other words, public opinion is important to the actual funding and even legality of pedagogy as it is practiced. And, if public opinion is that pedagogies that maintain class distinctions and embrace a modernist or foundationalist point-of-view in regard to standards and content are essential to producing successful citizens, than the implementation of a politicized, anti-foundationalist or postmodern pedagogy becomes more problematic than individual teachers can reasonably justify, especially if there are no ties to a common disciplinary or professional obligation to teach toward social transformation. In effect, Giroux and others are asking individual teachers to take a leap of faith and introduce explicitly political pedagogies into their classrooms, in the context of a world that generally believes that politics and education should be separate entities, with no support (or net) provided from either the professional or theoretical worlds as the only ethical way in which to mediate the problems with academic discourse and identity.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Teaching English to L2 writers: A review of literature

2008-04-27T10:35:00.000-07:00

Christine Maddox

Students representing various cultures and speaking numerous languages are entering the American writing classroom intent on learning to successfully write in English. Accordingly, there are countless theories and strategies regarding how to best teach English writing to non-native (L2) English speakers. Much of the research in this area of study focuses upon the challenges of teaching L2 writers within the English classroom, specifically what languages should be included within the classroom and what teaching methods are most successful with L2 writers.

L2 student writers should be encouraged to write and speak in both their native language and English within the classroom (Bean et al., Sook et al., Steinman, McCarthy). Research shows that incorporating both languages into the writing classroom leads to increased proficiency in English (Bean et al., Sook et al., Steinman). More specifically, prewriting in the native language and later revising into English allows L2 writers to develop richer, more detailed ideas (Bean et al.). L2 students tend to feel less inhibited and more comfortable when writing in their home language, and so writing initially produced in native languages is often more descriptive and less restricted than writing originally written in English (Bean et al., Mlynarczyk).

Language is a social construct that develops through social interaction of “input” and “output” (Sook et al. 76). Language input occurs through a processing of what other people are saying and language output takes place during a linguistic response to the input. This means that students must be able to observe (input) and use (output) both languages freely in order to gain a solid understanding of and comfort with the new language. Therefore, encouraging L2 students to write and speak in both languages maintains the social aspect of language and facilitates a smooth transition into the English language.

Furthermore, the L2 students’ efforts to learn English are always influenced by current knowledge of their native tongue. These home language influences should be embraced within the classroom, because they guide the student’s ability to learn English (Steinman). For instance, a Spanish speaker’s knowledge of the Spanish tense pasado perfecto will help her understand the similar past perfect tense in English. Knowledge of how one language works will benefit the student as she attempts to discover and understand the intricacies of another language. Thus, writing instructors should encourage L2 writers to reflect upon their native language as they learn English and consider how their first language can help them in this process (Steinman).

Furthermore, research shows that it is helpful for teachers themselves to be able to speak both languages in order to create “interactional spaces” for L2 writers (Sook et al. 85). This fosters the development of both languages simultaneously and further aids in the English acquisition process. Since L2 students do not stop developing their home language following introduction to English, it is reasonable that writing instructors should encourage concurrent growth of both the native language and English within the L2 classroom (Steinman, Sook et al.). This can be done through the instructor’s own practice of both languages within the class.
Ultimately, separation of languages within the classroom leads to a separation outside of the classroom. Students will not feel comfortable writing in both languages in the real world if they don’t do so in the classroom and will most likely insist on solely using their native tongue for real-world written communication (Sook et al.). If the goal of writing instructors is to prepare students to write outside of the classroom, instructors must prepare students for the real-world interaction between both languages that inherently accompanies second-language writers.

Also, allowing for the use of both the native language and English within the classroom shows a respect for the L2 writer that will facilitate the adoption of English writing practices (Bean et al., Carr). The Western world has subjected non-Western peoples to the process of “otherization” – the identifying of non-Western cultures simply by the fact that they are not of the Western world (Carr 192). Thus, it is imperative that non-Western students hear all voices, Western and non-Western, within the classroom, in order for them to feel included and accepted as English students (Carr, McCarthy). This inclusion will help them feel comfortable enough to embrace the English language; thus, L2 writers must be given opportunities in the English classroom to tell their stories, speak and write in their native languages, and interact with their native cultures (Carr). Ultimately, this respect and comfort for their native languages will show itself in their willingness and eagerness to adopt and respect English writing skills (Steinman, Bean et al.).

While native language writing has proven beneficial to L2 students, writing instructors must remember that not every situation is conducive to native tongue writing within the English classroom. For example, exploratory and personal writing works well when written in the student’s native language, but exams do not because students will need to translate their writing into English and there will rarely be time for this during the exam period (Bean et al.). Each classroom assignment is situational and should be evaluated as such.

While it appears as if researchers agree that both languages should be used within the L2 writing classroom at some point, there are many discrepancies about how to best teach L2 student writers. Recently, the United Kingdom passed a ban on bilingual dictionaries in L2 examinations citing a 1998 study by Hurman and Tall which reports that dictionaries give L2 students an unfair advantage (East). However, not all research supports this ban; a 2007 study by Martin East reports that non-native students should be allowed to use bilingual dictionaries on L2 writing exams because they don’t offer significant advantages. Furthermore, L2 students report preferring access to bilingual dictionaries because they are helpful for looking up unfamiliar words (East). East’s research stands in opposition to UK’s ban; it argues that dictionaries should be permitted since they don’t provide advantages and are preferred by L2 students.

Another disagreement among L2 writing instructors focuses upon the types of L2 assignments and how best to structure an L2 writing course. Some research shows the benefits of regular journal writing in English as a means of increasing English writing skills among L2 students (Mlynarczyk). Journals encourage freedom and a removal from precise writing rules. Studies have shown that this freedom ultimately leads to an increased English fluency because L2 students don’t feel constrained by their lack of mastery of the English language (Bean et al., Mlynarczyk).
However, not all researchers subscribe to the idea of journaling as the best option for L2 writers. Others feel that lessons on the technical aspects of the English language are most successful with L2 students and should be considered a central part of the L2 writing classroom (Zielinksa). Instead of focusing on a departure from English language rules and boundaries as do journals, technical writing theories emphasize teaching students how to communicate for practical purposes. Examples of technical aspects taught within L2 classrooms are awareness of purpose and audience, completion of secondary research, organization of texts, recognition of sentence type, and formation of coherent paragraphs (Zielinksa). Proponents of this teaching method maintain that familiarity with technical writing rules enhances a student’s ability to write well in English.

Yet other research shows that creating connections between the students’ home languages and English facilitates optimal growth of English writing skills (Steinman, Bean et al., Sook et al.). For this reason, assignments such as Literacy Autobiographies and Contrastive Analysis Projects are employed within some L2 classrooms because they combine native languages with English (Steinman). Literacy Autobiographies invite students to explore how they developed the literacy of their home language while Contrastive Analysis Projects compare home languages to specific dimensions of the English language such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. This unification of the two languages builds a language bridge so the L2 writer can transfer skills from her native language to the English classroom (Steinman).

Another method about how to best teach L2 student writers doesn’t focus on the specific assignments within the classroom as much as the theories driving the assignments. Some research shows that genre pedagogies are the best way to teach L2 writers because they provide real world applicability, reassurance for L2 writers, and opportunities for collaboration and scaffolding (Hyland). Through genre rules and conventions, L2 writers learn how to successfully write in English because they can recognize a “regularity and structure” with the new language (Hyland 152). Genres provide reassurance for L2 writers, allowing them to memorize and follow rules that are socially constructed and established. Furthermore, genres make writing assignments meaningful and social for L2 writers, increasing their connection to the writing assignment and their growth as English writers (McCarthy).

Genre pedagogy also provides clear standards for assessment so L2 teachers can be detailed and thorough with student feedback (Hyland). Instructors know what is expected of students within certain genres because the rules are established. This is beneficial for both L2 student writers and instructors.

Clearly, there is a large amount of scholarship regarding L2 student writers and how to best help them achieve English literacy. Despite the large numbers of articles and research regarding this topic, educators have yet to agree on how best to teach non-native English speakers. Much of the research as it stands today is informative yet contradictory as researchers seems to complicate and/or contradict each other in their attempts to discover optimal teaching methods and classroom settings for L2 writers.

The lack of agreement among L2 researchers can partly be attributed to a dearth in research directly comparing native and non-native English student writers. No one has systematically looked at the differences between two similar groups of native and non-native English college-aged writers in regards to thinking and writing processes. How does thinking in a different language and the act of translating from mind to paper affect one’s writing process and the text produced? The current research will seek to answer these questions by examining two student populations at the University of Dayton: L2 student writers and native English student writers.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Dialogue Journals: A Tool for Fostering ESL Writing Abilities

2008-04-27T10:30:00.000-07:00

Wanda Huber

Journal writing is a powerful tool for fostering learning (English and Gillen 1). It has been defined as an “art and a science, providing a means to express a writer’s inner thoughts, emotions, and actions while also helping him or her reflect “intentionally and systematically” on a subject (2). Although theoretical scholarship as well as empirical evidence associated with journal use in building language skills is limited (English and Gillen 3; Hiemstra 19; Jayne 1; Mlynarczyk Conversations 11), the classroom studies suggest certain journal-writing practices as affecting the quality and quantity of student writing (Norton 63). Such productivity occurs through journaling practices that encourage students to make connections between their personal thoughts and the academic materials (Mlynarczyk Conversations 168). To foster students’ ability to communicate meaningful thoughts without inhibitions, teachers use journals, called dialogue journals, to engage in conversations with their students. The available research suggests that for students of English as a second language (ESL or L2 learners), a nurturing environment helps writers overcome their inhibitions (Orem 76). Overcoming inhibitions is easier when writers converse with their teachers and peers without fear of negative or punitive criticism (Weissberg 132 ). When learning to write, participating in a real dialogue is more effective than passive memorization (Cisero 231). Through dialogue journaling, ESL students become actively engaged in writing, gaining the one-one attention needed to improve their skills (Peyton and Reed 111).

History of Dialogue Journaling as a Learning Tool
Dialogue journaling is not a “theoretically generated idea, but a teacher-developed classroom practice. Teachers, researchers, and teacher educators developed the practice at a time when “the broader ideas of interactional participation in learning and the power of natural conversational discourse were becoming widespread” (Staton and Peyton 7-1). Dialogue journaling has grown from one teacher, Leslee Reed’s exchange of thoughts for the day with her students to yearlong journal conversations that provided her students with a forum to “ask questions, to complain, to request help in solving personal as well as academic problems, and to share feelings” to formal classroom-level research of the dialogue journal (7-1). During the time when these studies were forming, “a network of ESL and foreign language instructors” began to develop by word of mouth before written descriptions of the process were publicly available (7-4). These teachers were interested in understanding how to use dialogue journals in ways specific to their needs (7-4). In response to this need, many doctoral students since the mid 1980s have adapted their dissertation research to understanding how dialogue journals support learners in different environments.

Characteristics of Journal Formats, Purposes, and Goals
Dialogue journaling offers students opportunities to engage in intellectually reflective conversations. Because many models incorporate some form of scaffolding, students are continually pressed to question, clarify, reconsider, and expand on their thoughts in greater and greater detail (Fenwick 35). From such dialogue students become actively engaged in their own thoughts as well as others. Being engaged in dialogue with another person in writing has a much greater impact on their fluency than “copying or filling in blanks” (Mlynarczyk 130). Teachers can facilitate journal writers thinking by directing attention to gaps in writer’s content or areas that could be explored more deeply (English 39). A common purpose of such interaction is to help students formulate complex thinking into words on the page without feeling inhibited by the added pressures of using correct English.

Although journaling takes many forms—diary, learning journal, interactive reading log, theory log, electronic journal, and others—not all forms are conducive to improving students’ abilities to formulate their thoughts in writing. For example, a diary is typically used to record chronological events, and this activity alone is not enough to “bring about deep changes in a person’s life” (Hiemstra 19), deep changes referring to growth as a writer, learner, and as a communicator. Incorporating teachers’ comments and questions designed for continued reflection, however, readies the diary for supporting ESL learners develop (19). Although large scale research on the affects of journal writing pedagogies is lagging, most field studies that utilize learning journals, reading logs, theory logs, and electronic journal formats incorporate some form of dialogue or response to entries (Peyton 22). These types of journals are characterized as follows: a learning journal is a record of “thoughts, reflections, feelings, personal opinions, and even hopes or fears during an educational experience” (21); an interactive reading log is a “series of reactions or responses. . .of what [learners] are reading in their own voice or words” (23); in a theory log students “make notes regarding what they perceive to be theoretical concepts, salient points, truths, bridges to known theory, ideas to be tested, and gaps in the knowledge. . .provid[ing] a foundation for course content” (23). The conversation taking place in these journals reflects the overall subject matter and journaling purpose.

In an L2 learning environment, students’ dialogue journals are characterized by the particular focus such as learning language structure, a structural approach; improving communication skills, a communicative approach; or developing self-empowerment, a participatory approach (Orem 73). These goals can be the sole purpose for the journaling practice or they can be used in combination. A journaling practice grounded in a structural approach will emphasize grammar and language structure and is most often found in an academic setting with teachers focusing on correct usage and error correction. With such a focus, dialogues can be particularly helpful when teachers do more than correction, offering feedback on students’ improvement and other forms of encouragement and advice (73). When employing a communicative approach, the content of the journal entries are more important than grammar and correctness (73). The participatory approach to teaching ESL emphasizes students’ self-empowerment by letting the context of students’ experiences frame the conversation with the self and with the teacher and/or peers (75). In an adult ESL learning environment, the journal becomes a tool for students to understand themselves as writers, as participants in a new cultural milieu, and a more complex usage of the English language.

Whether the journal focuses on syntactical/grammatical constructions, reading experiences, theoretical concepts, or personal interactions, the experience offers students writing practice. The dialogue journal will usually provide occasions for three types of reflection: those that engage the writer in reflection on future, present, or past actions or events. Being engaged in a writing situation constitutes a learning experience (Boud 13). This point highlights the basic qualities of reflective models that work from the assumption that “learning from experience is an active one” (Boud 12), requiring engaged thinking. In that moment of learning, writers challenge their own perceptions, notice their own processes and intervene on their own behalves (13). As an active process, learning occurs by re-evaluating past experiences, recognizing recurrent situations, and anticipating future responses based on the new information that arises from self-evaluation. Anticipatory reflection focuses on the context of a journal entry, exploring the writers’ goals for their writing, clarifying what is hoped to be gained from the journaling experience as a whole and then planning to work to achieve those benefits.

Issues, Benefits, and Obstacles of Dialogue Journaling in an ESL or Adult Literacy Course
Although it seems reasonable to assume that writers will be more motivated to participate in a journaling practices when their own personal learning goals are at stake, the research is not that simple. Student motivation is a complicated issue that alludes researchers. Some researchers believe student motivation in becoming actively engaged in a writing activity arises from beliefs that dialogue journaling directly leads to improved skills (Jayne 62). However, other researchers believe that whether or not students recognize the personal value arising from dialogue journaling, having a forum to communicate with their teacher one-on-one can often motivate students to participate and thus reap the benefits without intending to do so (Jayne 62). Such motivation seems to be enhanced when students feel their analysis or their thoughts are being taken seriously and being evaluated by real-world standards (Fallows and Ahmet 19).

In a classroom setting, students, teachers, and institutions expect writing to be evaluated not only on content but for language usage as well. This claim is especially true for the ESL learning environments. The tension from the need to assess student writing in dialogue journaling and the need to simply engage students creates a tension for teachers. This tension can shape students’ writing because when being assessed they will naturally be more interested in displaying what they know versus what they do not know. This type of performance is in direct opposition to successful dialogue journaling because “reflection involves focus on uncertainty, perplexing events, and exploration without necessarily knowing where it will lead” (English 16). For dialogue journaling to benefit writing and thinking abilities, students need to feel free to “express their doubts, reveal their lack of understanding, and focus on what they do not know” (English 16). Creating a comfortable space for writers to explore what they do not know, willingly exposing their intellectual inadequacies in classroom or group settings, often hinges on the relationship writers have with readers (Boud 16). If the role of a teacher’s response is of corrector, a writer is not free to explore in their writing concepts that are relevant and/or infused with mature thought but designed to please the teacher and thus limiting the journaling experience. Addressing the tensions at the start of a dialogue journaling experience is essential to dealing with the opposition between creating a writing environment where writers feel safe from criticism and one that pushes writers to advance their efforts and improve their skills. It is important to note that most often when the practice of dialogue journaling is employed for developing better communication skills, it functions in tangent with other classroom procedures and pedagogies. This is important when seeking to alleviate such tension as some teachers may choose to clearly identify strictly reflective work from work that will be assessed or graded (Boud 17).

Providing a forum for students to think and write without scrutiny can have great effect on writers developing fluencies (Mlynarczyk Conversations 13). The validity of this claim is implicit in a journal entry of a twelfth grade ESL student, who is asked to comment on her experience dialogue journaling with her teacher
What I have learned from the journals is how to write about my ideas. . .I can write what I want, and when I am writing, I have ideas about what to write. I sometimes don’t like it when teaches tell me what to write and I’m not interested in what I’m writing about. I feel bored and don’t enjoy it. The best thing about the journal is it keeps you thinking about what you are writing. (Peyton and Reed 27)
The experience of dialogue journaling for this student reveals an important element of a successful dialogue journaling experience—providing topics learners are interested in and the opportunity to share those ideas (Norton 69). Echoing this assumption, Joy Peyton and Leslee Reed quote Loban’s assertion regarding the need for students to be given an opportunity to write genuine communications: “‘. . .pupils must apply whatever is studied to situations in which they have something to say, a deep desire to say it, and someone to whom they genuinely want to say it’” (qtd. in 27). Providing a forum where genuine communications can take place is a chief benefit of a successful dialogue journaling practice.

In her dissertation, Veronica Jayne points out a number of student surveys that parallel the above student’s comments, addressing how the focus on content and not grammar correctness motivates active engagement in writing “‘you don’t scare for the structure,’” “ ‘even spelling is wrong, I don’t care. Just writing more,’” and it’s good psychologically because every time we see mistake, you know, it is not good for the students. They are too much demotivated’” (Jayne 10-11). That these students feel motivated to write because their grammar is not corrected does not imply a lack of interest in learning to use correct grammar. In fact, not all students react positively to conversing with their teachers outside of a writing/assessing relationship. Some students may even find writing that is not graded on its correctness suspect (Jayne 11). The issue of grammar correction is complicated by the fact that no evidence supports the belief that students’ benefit from grammar correction. A study comparing two groups of learners, one with a focus on error correction and the other with a content focus validates the belief that error correction does not help writers improve the quality of their writing. This study reveals the group receiving error correction produced writing with no improvement in content and with less complex texts while the other group improved in complexity and content (Jayne 12). That in addition to a diminished complexity in writing the students whose writing was being corrected began demonstrating avoidance behaviors points to the need for teachers to be educated in how to respond to student writing since it can effect their motivation to actively engage in a writing practice.

How to Respond to Journals
For teachers interested in helping students developing their skills, a dialogue journal is a useful tool that depends on teachers’ appropriate responses. Responding to student writing is a critical teacher skill (Shin)—unfortunately, one that ESL teacher training often omits. Many teachers and researchers lament this point and believe training imperative (Orem 70, Jarvis 79, English 88, Shin). In general, teachers are “largely unprepared, marginalized, and isolated practitioners” (Orem 70). Orem, Jarvis, and Shin recommend that teachers interested in teaching L2 language learners need training and practice in dialogue journaling. The hope is that by teachers engaging in a reflective practice of their own and in conversation with their supervising teacher, they will “see how their own ideas are changing and developing as the course proceeds and to test their practice against the theoretical ideas to which they have been introduced” (Jarvis 82). Through praxis, the anticipated outcome is that teachers “will come to understand their own actions better, but will use journals as a way to engage in their own research. . .gain[ing] practice in asking questions (73).

In Shin’s study of pre-service teachers, she incorporates a reflective learning journal with ESL tutoring, asking student teacher’s to reflect on each tutoring experience immediately following a tutoring session, to make connections to previous sessions, and to question what has worked and what has not as well as to anticipate methods for improvement. By “emphasizing the importance of providing contexts in which teachers use their educational experiences to construct an understanding of their philosophy of teaching, as well as their strengths, weaknesses and potential as teachers, the reflective approach enables prospective teachers to integrate theory and practice and to plan their personal and professional development” (Shin). More simply, to be effective educators requires educators to be reflective practitioners (English 33).

Since Shin’s study is not a generalized practice for teacher training, teachers need to rely on the available research for knowing how to respond appropriately to students journals. Researchers have identified three basic types of teacher responses as helpful: those that affirm, those that direct attention to gaps in thoughts or that provide insight or clarity of thoughts emerging in the writing, and those that “enter a conversation with the journal writer by probing, extending, and connecting (Fenwick 35). Whether the responder is the journal writer, the instructor, or a peer, responders take on different roles through which to listen and respond that depend on the writer’s intentions and the relationship between writer and responder (Fenwick 41). Tara Fenwick characterizes these responses as those that comfort, mirror, provoke, direct learning, portray a friend-in-dialogue, elevate students knowledge, and/or act as a biographer (41) Although most of these roles seem self-explanatory, a few require additional explanation. For example, as a biographer the responder reminds the journal writer of their overall development that has taken shape, opening the door for changing established narrative patterns; as a mirror, a teacher’s response will reflect a students thoughts or questions (41). As a general rule, teacher response will be most helpful if have a casual tone, use personal examples, ask questions to help writer’s clarify their thoughts (Fenwick 41; English and Gillen 91). Taken from Kirby and Liner’s work, Fenwick outlines suggestions for responding to student writing:
•Be an active reader
•Encourage the student to share excerpts from the journal writing with classmates
•Suggest future topics. Notice profitable digressions
•Write an extended response, a short poem, or ask questions
•Avoid empty comments like interesting, nice, or good idea
•Be honest with students
•Look for something good
•Avoid sarcasm. Even offhand humorous comments in writing can be hurtful.
•Take a break. Respond to just a few journals at a time (41)
Fenwick’s final suggestion to take a break speaks to the main obstacle for engaging in dialogue journaling—time. Writing and responding to journals in a full practice is extremely time consuming and can inhibit the development of this practice (English and Gillen 85). To avoid burn-out, teachers should be realistic in their expectations. Some instructors have dealt with the lack of time by broadening their students’ audiences, adding peer groups to the conversations (Mlynarczyk Conversations 174). Because of the amount of work involved, teachers need to understand that they are not only helping students in their reflective practices but the act of responding to others’ thoughts serves to help clarify one’s own beliefs (175). Because of the time constraint, teachers and students need clear, yet flexible, guidelines established in the beginning of the practice so that expectations can be realistic.

Although researchers believe dialogue journaling is invaluable to learning and should be taught more consistently in higher education (English and Gillen 85), there are those that argue for caution. They believe not enough is known about how to properly respond to students and worry that the crossover between the professional and the personal implicit in dialogue journaling has serious ethical implications: “The point is that by engaging students personally and encouraging them to communicate openly in their journals. . .we invite personal response (Weissberg 140). Leona English echoes Boud and Walker’s belief that educators should “avoid demanding that learners reflect on critical incidents in their lives or ask learners for too much disclosure, especially when there are inadequate support services to counsel learners in crisis” (30).

When the professional teacher engages students socially there is danger that the dialogue journal “will turn into unexpectedly significant social events (Weissberg 141). This may be due, in part, to the fact that L2 writers “may not share our cultural or personal values, or our assumptions about what constitutes socially appropriate discourse (Weissberg 141). These ethical concerns ought not be trivialized as they “arise every time we discuss an issue, put something into practice, engage in dialogue with colleagues, and interact with learners” (English 34). Because dialogue journaling is a practice that is being embraced in the field, some basic principles to adhere to are useful as more field research and reflection are being conducted: Practice respect, justice, beneficence, self-awareness, and caring when conversing with students and when handling the private information found within their journals (32-3).

Although dialogue journaling provides the one-to-one relationship that ESL learners require, helps writers feel more confident and less afraid of criticism, supports pre-service teachers in developing their practice, creates meaningful writing experiences with real-world implications, the benefits of dialogue journaling are not without risks. Dialogue journaling makes teaching a personal practice, a practice that grows in the interstices between the personal and the professional. From this in-between place, teachers invite students to engage in a dialogue. Although such a dialogue can be framed and the parameters of appropriate conversation delimited, real reflection is difficult to control. When students and teachers are engaging in personal conversations, the typical parameters of what is appropriate to discuss and what is inappropriate become blurred. For example, if a teacher, mirroring a student’s reflection, shares that she has dyslexia, should the student be held accountable for keeping such information private? Should the teacher? Teachers need more than basic guidelines and common sense when determining how to handle the inevitable ethical issues that will arise when engaging students in dialogue. Because of the specific nature of the individual issues that may arise, it is impossible to list how to handle every situation. Conducting a large scale, multi-leveled survey could uncover invaluable information for the practicing teacher. Thee questions might include asking teachers and students who have engaged in dialogue journals about their specific experiences such as describing the ethical dilemmas experienced, the manner in which they were handled, the final outcomes as well as imagined outcomes if the situation were handled differently. It is reasonable to assume that this research will uncover similar situations that teachers and students have faced, multiple ways in which they have been handled, and multiple outcomes. Providing teachers with such information, could serve teachers’ in knowing the best manner in which to handle those border conversations in a manner that fosters learning with uncompromised ethics.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Class Changing the Classroom

2008-04-27T10:12:00.001-07:00

Jessica Fentress

“The BA degree determines whether individuals will perform mental or physical labor, and it also determines the amount of autonomy they will have over their work” (Soliday 732). However, structures within the composition classroom and the world of higher education as a whole often alienate working class students who need the Bachelor’s degree in order to cross socioeconomic lines into the middle class. Socioeconomic class in the university can, therefore, function as something more than a “distribution of resources” (Lindquist). Socioeconomic class is part of a larger power struggle that leaves educators in a position of having to force change in order to give their working-class students a fair chance at entering the university and the wider world of the middle class.

Earlier research focused primarily on linguistic concerns to explain why working class students faced problems in the college writing classroom. A close analysis of studies conducted prior to 1983 found that many of the studies had inconclusively proven linguistic differences in the writing samples of members of working and middle class students. Middle-class boys ages 12-14 were found to write more and use more subordinate clauses than their working-class peers. The middle class was given credit for using more adjectives, more elaboration, more modification, writing longer essays with longer, more complicated sentences, and being more adept at basic utilitarian genres such as thank you letters. The working class, in contrast, was given credit for having more capability in narrative and description that relied on more concrete details to communicate (Poole).

Still other studies reviewed found no differences at all and suggested that working class students had, in effect, been schooled out of that which marked their written communication as working class. While Poole concludes that there is no evidence that there are linguistic differences between the classes, she does point to a much larger truth about the studies; nearly all of them judged writing by middle class standards, rules, and definitions, which leave educators with only two options if they want to acknowledge class differences and refuse to disdain basic aspects of their student’s history: they can romanticize the value of being working class and refuse to impose academic discourse upon their students’ native way of making meaning, but this would not grant working class students basic access to the power structures of a middle-class society, or they can strip working class students of their identities and basic views of the world and allow them access to the university (Poole). Either of these are unacceptable solutions.

More recent research focuses on innate ways of thinking and acting in social settings that may make classrooms alienating places for working class students. The research indicates that working class students are often criticized for using cliché phrases (Seitz). It also indicates that working class students may have difficulty questioning authority or exhibiting their own intelligence in class, leading professors to think that they are not engaged, active participants in the class (Tingle).

Current research also seeks to explain the “shortcomings” of the working class. For instance, Seitz is quick to explain the fact that cliché phrases may be part of a larger coping system that helps working class students to hold onto their old world while trying to enter the middle class, and Tingle is quick to point to research that studied the parenting practices of working class and middle class parents and found that working class caregivers discouraged exhibitions of intelligence or the criticism of sources of power.

While identity and socialization issues are important, there are also more pragmatic difficulties faced by working class students that have nothing to do with language. Institutions of higher learning are expensive, and as the funding for public higher education is cut, so too, is the number of working class students who can afford to enter and stay in the university. Working class students are often forced to work more hours outside of class in order to pay for their education, severely limiting the time they can spend on class work. They, therefore, often find themselves under too much exhaustion and financial strain to finish their degree in four years, or, indeed, at all (Soliday).

Given these differences more recent research seeks to explore the best approach to teaching composition to working-class students. It is quick to conclude that a formalist axiology does not work. Formalist pedagogies can drastically endanger a working-class student’s abilities and liberties within the English classroom. Formalist axiology teaches the rules of middle-class discourse with very little regard to the patterns and talents that working-class students bring with them to the classroom (Shor). While Shor advocates the critical /cultural studies approach to teaching composition as a way of giving students power within the classroom, other researchers have been quick to point out the many problems with critical/cultural studies.

The problem with critical/cultural studies ultimately arises from the fact that critical/cultural studies professors, while trying to liberate their students from the dominant middle class discourse, ultimately force adherence to an anti-dominant ideology with its own foundationalist standards of how students should go about being freed in the first place (Bizzell; Lindquist; and Seitz). The critical/cultural studies classroom often replaces the authoritative, fundamentalist standard of academic discourse with a method of analysis (Bizell) that is often foreign to working class students. The new standard logic, which relies heavily on objective, deductive reasoning alienates working class students who may have been socialized to favor inductive reasoning based on personal experience and emotion (Lindquist; Seitz).

Researchers, however, offer different solutions to the problem of a foundationalist standard of “appropriate” logic. Lindquist advocates a pedagogy in which the teachers’ role is not one of critiquing students as “honest skeptics,” but one of “strategic performance” in which teachers work “to tactically position themselves as conduits for students’ affective responses to the paradoxes of nostalgia and ambition in working-class experiences.” This sounds like the “British pedagogical approach” that allows students, not merely of the working class, to do research in their native discourses without favoring or enforcing academic discourse (Bizzell). While this may be good for the emotional well-being of working-class students, Bizzell finds fault with it, claiming that working class students often learn only one thing from such a course: “that they don’t want to have anything to do with academic discourse. They leave school. Thus, indeed, they escape the threat of assimilation. But also[…] they escape any possibility of changing their disenfranchised social status” (Bizzell 49). Bizzell, therefore, advocates a two-pronged approach to teaching composition to diverse student populations at large.

First, she advocates a rhetorical approach to teaching composition that allows student to “demystify” academic discourse by immersing them in the academic community to the point of “socialization.” Second, she advocates recognizing the fact that academic discourse is not a rigid and unchanging monolith. Rather, it contains many revolutionary strands that can and do change what is acceptable in the university. It is therefore the responsibility of educators to advocate for change that will allow for a more inclusive academy and world at large (Bizzell).

Political change is called for in other arenas. Some research recognizes the ways in which the basic structures of the college composition system can inhibit working class students’ abilities to succeed in the university and the middle class world at large. Shor and Soliday, both writing from the City University of New York, insist that language policies at the university level are for the express purpose of limiting working class and minority students’ access to the university. They claim that policies which use standardized tests before students enter the university to place specific students in remedial courses based on their familiarity with white, middle class discourse are intent upon “cooling out” students and lessening their career aspirations or ability to attain a Bachelor’s Degree. Soliday points out that
Remediation and assessment may foster students’ progress at some institutions, but Barbara Gleason and I have evidence that both acted as internal barriers by slowing students’ progress toward a BA at CCNY. While tuition was soaring and the poverty level of minorities was increasing in New York City, our students could neither use their financial aid to pay for remedial courses nor enroll in required core curriculum courses while simultaneously completing remedial requirements. We felt that the remedial program was not receiving adequate funding or intellectual attention from the institution commensurate to its functions, and we had collected evidence that the CUNY WAT [a standardized test used for placement] did not accurately predict who would succeed in a college writing course. (Soliday 738)
Shor explains this problem in more shocking terms by stating that his students who succeeded in spite of the fact that they should have been in remedial courses were the possessors of “illegal literacy” that caused them to have to jump through hoops such as taking a freshman composition class, passing it, and then having to go back and take the remedial course in order to get credit for it. This frustrates him and his students, and leaves Shor claiming that these are the policies that uphold the “regime” of middle class “white supremacy.” Furthermore, Shor claims that the problem will get worse as national standardized tests replace individual institutions’ English competency tests as ways of tracking students and assigning them to remedial instruction.

Both Shor and Soliday advocate, as does Bizzell, political action by professors to change both the way that writing instruction is taught and the system in which it is taught. However, none of these studies measure the effectiveness of their respective approaches in creating change and opening the university up to students of the working class. All of this research is hypothetical, based on what researchers think practitioners ought to be doing, not the actual effect of changing classrooms and political institutions on retention and education of working class students, which seems to be all of the researchers’ ultimate goals. Perhaps this is the result of the fact that change like this will have to happen very slowly, but finding an effective way to prevent composition from serving as a roadblock to student success is a critical component to educating working class students who need access to wider power structures in order to help themselves and help change the system.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Multiple Intelligences Theory in the Composition Classroom: A Review of Literature

2008-04-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

Jamie Feltner

In 1983, Dr. Howard Gardner, researcher and Harvard lecturer of Psychology and Education, published a book that explored the potentialities and wide range of human intelligences. Frames of Mind asserted that human intelligence was much more multifaceted than society had previously assumed, and introduced Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory in which he states that there are multiple intelligences humans are capable of cultivating, not just the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences typically valued in education. Gardner went on to claim that society’s traditional standards of measuring intelligence were seriously flawed, and through his research he formulated a list of seven possible intelligences: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Spatial, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal.

Researchers have continued to investigate Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory in order to examine its validity and to study methods of implementing MIT into our education system. This research is especially vital in the field of composition, a key field in which educators have had to battle the deeply help beliefs of what intelligence consists of and how to measure it. In order for composition educators to abandon the traditional beliefs concerning intelligence and the methods of measuring it, research connecting MIT to the field of composition (including possible benefits, consequences, and methods of application) must continue to be conducted. And though the research surrounding the topic has been mostly relegated to the sidelines of the field, there have been some important breakthroughs and conclusive findings, three of which I will highlight in this review: (1) There is an inherent connection between composition and all other intelligences; (2) By encouraging students to explore these connections there are benefits and, likewise, by prohibiting students from exploring these connections there are negative consequences; (3) Teachers could use MIT to help “unskilled” writers find their niche.

In Frames of Mind Gardner declares connections between all seven types of intelligences he outlines, and asserts that in order to appropriately express oneself in writing and accurately decide upon the right framework for expressing words and ideas, other intelligences, in addition to linguistic, are required. Since writing is a blend of several distinct human intelligences, composition students, as multifaceted individuals, should be provided with assignments and activities that activate and develop all of their intelligences (Etim, Grow, Sword). As researcher Peter Smagorinsky mentions in his article “Constructing Meaning in the Disciplines: Reconceptualizing Writing across the Curriculum as Composing across the Curriculum,” most human activity in general (in our daily, academic, and professional lives) involves some combination of Gardner’s intelligences. To disregard this truth in terms of writing assignments and assessments only puts composition students at a disadvantage. By acknowledging that there is an inherent connection between composition and all other intelligences, it is acknowledged that there is not one standard way of learning and, therefore, there should not be one standard way of assessing (Abhorn).

By encouraging students to explore these connections, composition teachers will soon see the benefits. For starters, by having a conscious awareness of their intellectual strengths and personal intelligences, (which vary between students) students might be able to implement behaviors and habits better suited to improving their own personal composition process (Abhorn). By having the freedom to identify their own “right” ways of learning and demonstrating their skills, students will begin to show more promise for possibility as they individually interpret assignments and respond in their own intelligent way (Hearne & Stone, Sword). Since MIT forces students to abandon their habitual linguistic mode and write (and read) for different purposes, “MI-inspired teaching can facilitate the kind of critical-creative thinking that will allow… students to flourish in an increasingly multidisciplinary social and intellectual environment” (Sword, 248). One of the composition teachers’ responsibilities is to prepare their students for the world outside of academia. As Hearne and Stone state in their article “Multiple Intelligences and Underachievement: Lessons from Individuals with Learning Disabilities,” “a good language arts program is one that expands the communication potential of all learners through the orchestration and use of multiple ways of knowing for purposes of ongoing interpretation and inquiry into the world” (447).

By either denying the existence of the connections between multiple intelligences and composition, or by denying students the opportunity to explore these connections, negative consequences arise. If most school writing is either strictly informational or analytic and refuse to incorporate other intelligences, there are inherently many limitations of what schools treat as legitimate ways of writing and thinking (Smagorinsky). And by focusing on reading and writing in a strictly traditional sense, what Gardner refers to as “cognitive revolutions” associated with the other learning intelligences may not occur (Gardner, “Frames”).

Lastly, through research with “unskilled” writers, it has also been hypothesized that Multiple Intelligences Theory could be used to help such writers find their niche. “Unskilled” writers, along with At Risk Children, Exceptional Children, The Academically Gifted, and ESL students, need appropriate lesson planning and assessments that touch on their needs and highlight their abilities. This could best be accomplished by incorporating multiple intelligences in writing, not only the “standard” linguistic intelligence (Etim). Those students having difficulty writing could turn to other intelligences for inspiration. In fact, research by Hearne and Stone has shown that focusing on creativity in a more nontraditional sense can prompt better writing samples from students labeled with a Learning Disability.

There seems to be plenty of research supporting the importance of integrating MIT into the composition class. The gap in research seems to stem from the question of how to integrate MIT into the composition programs on a large scale. For instance, books with individual MIT lesson plans are easy to find, but the route to take in order to create a large scale change in the education system has yet to be suggested.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Incubation in the writing process—for those with loose screws: A Review of Literature

2008-04-27T09:58:00.001-07:00

Mike Dunekacke

"Aha." We've all probably experienced the aha moment. You've walked away from a frustrating task or question with no answer, and then later—maybe minutes, maybe years—the answer pops in your head while you're taking a walk, washing dishes or maybe just sorting screws.

Former Poet Laureate, Ted Kooser, once told me he goes to his office everyday to write. If nothing comes, he stays in his office for a set amount of time and does something—anything. His favorite way to kill the time is sorting jars of miscellaneous screws purchased at thrift stores. He takes the assortment of screws from someone else's forgotten shop and just begins sorting them by size and type.

Kooser would certainly rather be writing. But if he can't, he knows that he needs to be in this space and ready. He's waiting for the words and, judging from the volume of work Kooser has produced, it's a good strategy.

When considering the writing process in academia over the course of a semester, I found very little about incubation—about providing the time for an idea to germinate. It's all about direct activity: prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing are the common steps given for the process. And the end goal is always quality writing. We expect students to produce quality writing for discourse communities they are unfamiliar with, yet we ignore one part of the process that provides so much fruit for practicing members of that same professional community: incubation.

From anecdote to evidence
One simple reason that incubation has been largely ignored by composition scholars is because it is most commonly considered an entirely subconscious process (Dively, "Preludes" 22, Dively, "Incubating" 92, Gates 60-61, Wells 407). Opinions differ on the degree that incubation is subconscious, but—even if it is entirely subconscious—that shouldn’t prohibit the consideration of incubation in the writing process. Psychologists and philosophers certainly haven’t limited their considerations or study of the thought process buried in the subconscious—nor should we—considering the possible benefits to students of writing.

Methods
As noted, there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence of the benefits of incubation in the writing process. However, if you would rather not accept the testimony of writers like Cather, Hemingway, King and Kipling, researchers are just beginning to explore incubation (Dively 47-48, Emig 6-8).

First on anyone’s list to read if they are considering researching incubation, should be Dr. Ronda Leathers Dively’s book, Preludes to Insight: Creativity, Incubation, and Expository Writing. Dively’s text provides the best synthesis and summary of the history and scholarship concerning incubation and the writing process, and she takes that work a step further with case studies: chapter five considers undergraduate students, and chapter six focuses on graduate students.

After what must be close to a First-Year Composition universal, Dively spent several frustrating semesters having students write six essays on six different topics. Far from approaching expertise, the students were more often skimming the surface and summarizing basic concepts. Dively knew her students needed a change, and the goal from the onset was not necessarily to directly consider the effects of incubation. Her goal, like so many other FYC professors, was to teach students to be better writers.

Dively didn’t reduce the amount of writing. Instead, she allowed the students to write six papers on the same subject, honing their understanding of the topic and their familiarity with the nuances of the discourse community. During this time, there was time to incubate, and there was activity. The work entailed research, talking about your ideas with others (in class and experts), and writing a draft. Incubation is not about procrastination—a worry that that was initially expressed by Dively's students (158).

The result? Not only significant improvements in the writing, but an increase in confidence in the students, and, Dively hints at—an increase in transfer to other writing situations (174).

And Dively isn't alone as she looks to the study of incubation to delve further into the creative process. Other scholars are also implementing studies to determine the benefits of incubation (Coskun 471-474, Wells 407-408). Both of these scholars are concentrating on what might be called forced incubation. Coskun's emphasis is on small group research and brainstorming whereas Wells' work is directly focused on writing in the academic community.

The interesting point of Wells' study is that the professors who implemented some type of active incubation strategy were more creatively productive (measured as the number of published articles in refereed journals) than those who did not (408). Specifically, Wells indicated that the professors, "who intentionally set manuscripts aside for a period of time to allow for the incubation process tended to be the most productive" (408). The same result occurred in Coskun's research—albeit in small groups. The groups that used forced incubation were able to brainstorm more ideas in a controlled setting (474).

In both of these studies, there is emphasis on the structure of the incubation. The amount of structure varies widely (from a matter of minutes, to simply implementing some type of formal break) but the results are both positive—more production of what is essentially considered creative work.

Other scholars are beginning to look at the science behind the process of incubation. Although I did no direct research into this aspect, Dively touches on the some of the predominant efforts under way in considering physical explanations for the benefits of incubation, including neurobiological studies measuring cortical arousal, the effect of neurotransmitting hormones such as adrenocorticotropic hormone (ATCTH), and even some exploration into what some have thought to be more traditional chemical facilitators of incubation (such as alcohol) (Dively 27-28).
Block and Transfer
Two of the points uncovered that show the most promise if incubation is implemented into writing courses include overcoming writer's block and the enhancement of transfer of writing tasks from one class (or writing situation) to another.

Transfer was briefly mentioned previously in regards to Dively's work, but she was not the only scholar to highlight this possible benefit of utilizing incubation in the writing process. Incubation, in effect, feeds on related material and experience (Gates 64). Thus, providing the opportunity for incubation can assist the student in—not only drawing on items of content that will assist their writing, but—developing on previous methods and composition strategies that have worked for them in the past. In a way, this aspect of incubation as a facilitator of transfer knowledge is also similar and useful in tackling the current concept—and practice—of writing to learn that is becoming more popular in writing programs.

Janet Emig first raised the idea of using incubation as a method important to writing to learn in 1964 (6-11). Although she never directly used the term incubation, there is little doubt what she is talking about as she quotes a passage by Amy Lowell, "An idea will come into my head for no apparent reason; 'The Bronze Horses,' for instance. I registered the horses as a good subject matter and … consciously thought no more about the matter … what I had really done was to drop my subject into the subconscious, much as one drops a letter into the mail box" (10). What Emig seems to be getting at in her article is that artists have historically used incubation to create, to learn their own craft—and that this process is more likely to provide rich results for our students than the attempt to force them into a rigid structure of completing multiple essays on unrelated topics where the student has no time to sit with the idea and develop their own thoughts.

And developing thoughts when it comes down to completing the final task—actually writing the product—introduces us to the final concept that was raised in this research on incubation in the writing process: the use of incubation to overcome writer's block.

The two reasearchers that both addressed block directly where Krashen and Coskun. Coskun, again, was studying the impact of incubation techniques in a small group brainstorming session. Krashen, on the other hand, was looking the writing process.

Specifically, Krashen notes that our current instruction methods serve to trivialize the importance of incubation—in-class writing assignments, timed essays, and sit-down written tests (11). Alternatively, incubation should be seen as a critical part of the process and should be considered an "essential component of revision" (11). He notes that the failure to include incubation in the writing process can actually be a cause of the block—causing apprehension and fear whereas taking the break and providing the time to incubate "may help the subconscious solve the problem" (11).

Conclusion
The investigation of incubation in the writing process is clearly in its infancy. Dively offers the most thoughtful work on it thus far, but her work isn't flawless. Future case studies by Dively, or other scholars, would benefit from more active measurement—more evaluators of the student work—if nothing else. Dively's personal testimony of the improvement of her students is one piece of evidence, but opening the data to a larger pool of composition experts would give her work greater weight.

One might envision a combination of the case study with additional focus provided by creativity scholars like Coskun—who tend towards a methodology more rooted in the traditional, scientific approach to study and measurement.

In effect, such a combined effort could serve to legitimize what so many professional writers have anecdotally already told us—that incubation benefits the writing process. The problem with this is that few institutions, let alone programs, are going to be swayed by anecdotal evidence.

However, if the goal of writing programs is to produce better writers—to produce students that can write effectively across the curriculum—we should be exploring all ways to achieve this. Incorporating incubation into the writing process doesn't seem like such a stretch when we consider how many programs have implemented other techniques that, at the time they were initially implemented, were also seen as alternative—such as freewriting to help students unlock their thoughts and practice writing. Exploring the alternatives to a structure that is currently broken seems like a legitimate approach.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

How Identity Shapes a Writer: A Review of Literature

2008-04-27T09:44:00.000-07:00

John Dunbar

Upon first glance, the process of writing a paper for a class, or an article for a paper appears to be predetermined and executed with a universal set of rules applied by the writer. This disproved notion is what has been the driving source for researchers who want to know more about the deeper, inner workings of writers from students to those in the workplace. The goal is to find a method for teaching writers to adapt to particular situations, while at the same time trying to understand what has made them the writer that they are. Over the years, teachers
have tried different tactics to engage students in the writing process, and one of the main factors is being able to relate to a student’s background in writing. A writer’s identity is what drives the individual to write in a particular way and if this can be understood then the potential for improvement is drastically improved.

A writer’s identity is formed and molded from a number of different sources. During the time that a writer is learning how to write, whether it is at an early age, such as high school, or throughout their college career, there is a need for adaptability and an expansion of what they have previously learned. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of writers in English speaking schools with English as their second language (ESL), which affects their writing style and/or how they understand the writing process. Some other issues that have created a need to understand a writer’s personality is the increase in technology and what kind of examples students are following when writing for a specific purpose. The issue of individuals’ identities in the classroom and the workplace is a pressing concern for professors who are trying to establish good writing and writers in a number of various fields.

As hard as it is to come into a new environment and a new discourse community imagine the added pressure of having to understand the process that is being taught in a foreign language. Learning the rules alone is a challenging experience, but having to convert those rules from the training that has already been learned in the writer’s native country is another challenge all by itself. These two cultural differences can be described as an ideological identity, meaning a system of values that have been acquired from social and cultural backgrounds, and a logical identity, using the natively learned way of organizing and expressing thoughts (Shen 459). Addressing an individual’s past is the first step in understanding their identity as a writer. This usually starts within the home and the interactions that occur based on family experiences, as well as early impressions about writing made in the schooling of an individual. A general definition about second language writing can be defined as such, “the study and teaching of writing done in a language other than one’s mother tongue—or perhaps better, one’s mother hand” (Leki; Silva 5). The relationship of schooling and family influence on writing can also be explained as a crossroads between composition studies (schooling) and applied linguistics (language learning and teaching based on schooling/family/cultural influence) (Leki; Silva 1-5). Knowing the connection between these two identities is the goal in establishing the identity of an individual, but the problem lies within the fact that these two identities have the ability to pull the writer in two separate directions, which ultimately leads to finding epistemologies that will compensate for these different styles of learning and understanding (Leki; Silva 10). These studies have shown that the connection of individuals’ writing identities to cultural influences is very strong, and ultimately must be confronted by the students to progress in the writing process and gain an understanding of the discourse community in which they participate, whether that is a university or in the workplace.

Studying the necessity to teach English as a second language has made significant progress in the composition field. Not only have these studies had an impact on ESL, but they have also encouraged some studies on the effects of location within the United States. The cultural differences throughout the US are vast and therefore lead to more writing based conflicts within the classroom. Understanding these conflicts as a teacher is a necessity, but understanding as a student is an added bonus that can help clarify some of the expectations of the professors. With the advancements in technology and the Internet over the last 10-15 years, an opportunity for cross-cultural integration has been very helpful in letting students communicate with each other. Through the writings of students on the west coast of the US in California, and the east coast in Pennsylvania, students have been able to communicate with other ethnicities and this has helped encourage an active role in discovering an identity (Fitzpatrick; Rankin-Brown 1). By engaging ESL students with other ESL students is a very productive method for understanding the English writing process and the more experience with the process the more successful a writer can become (Fitzpatrick; Rankin-Brown 5).

This cross-cultural experience for the students is not only a learning curve for them in terms of language barriers, but also in regards to the American culture they are exposed to during their time here. Looking at the culture of the youth of America (both ESL students and American students), from grade school up through college, a number of their influences come from the media that is circulated within their cultures. This is an important aspect for understanding what kind of exposure students have had to different types of writing. Based on above premise, it is important to address how “circulation materializes contradictory social relations and how the contradictions between exchange value and use value might be taken up in writing classrooms to expand public forums and popular participation in civic life” (Trimbur 188). When students have more of global understanding of how they fit within a culture or society then they are able to actively seek out their identity. The problem with this is that with all of the mediums of media and the different sources of how they are circulated causes biases based on what is being read by whom, and who is the one addressing the issue being read about (Trimbur 196). The biased approach to writing and those who read based on what they are interested in causes a burying effect of an individual identity into one that exists only within the group or circulation that one interacts with. This coincides somewhat with theory or ability to write within and across genres while maintaining an identity based on individual beliefs (Pare 57).

So much attention is focused on the trying to get the student to understand their identity when it comes to writing and the identity of the teacher is a factor that needs to be taken into account as well. Creating interest in students is a big part of helping them to find their own identity through writing (Elbow 73). Conflicting goals arise when there are a number of lessons and theories to be taught in the little amount of time that a professor has with the students and filtering out what is necessary and what is helpful is a battle of sorts. Not only are there conflicts internally, but also trying to guide a student to adapt to the academic discourse community (Pare 59).

Technology has opened gateways to achieve a better understanding of cultures, which provides academic institutions an opportunity to try and use that to their advantage much as was seen with the study if students in Pennsylvania and California. A cross-cultural experience in writing is a very challenging thing to take on, I can only imagine the struggles an ESL student must have since I have grown up in the United States and only spoken English my whole life. These studies show there are uses and needs for students to interact with other cultures, ultimately creating a system that could benefit not only the students, but also the professors who teach them. An understanding of a student's culture helps relate to the writing they have been exposed to and provide them with references that will catch their interest, encouraging them to explore their identity in writing. Technology has also caused problems based on the fact that there is so much short handed, unpunctuated, unintelligent writing that young students are being exposed to that it can damage the production made in the classroom. A college atmosphere is beneficial for the time spent on campus, and knowing how to write and teaching how to write can only improve.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Strategies for Teaching Basic Writing: A Literature Review

2008-04-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

Emily Burgess

Basic writing “can be loosely characterized as student writing […] which falls short of some set of expectations established by instructors or administrators” (Moody). Incidence of basic writing can be chronic or situation-specific and due either to student ability and experience or to teachers’ skills and expectations. This literature review examines strategies that teachers of basic writing can use to help their students be successful in academia and in society. Some researchers offer very specific pedagogical techniques that focus on the student, including functional grammar instruction, controlled composition, and focus on inferential reasoning; while other researchers acknowledge the subjectivity of each individual teaching situation and offer general guidelines instead.

Specific, Student-Based Strategies
One strategy encourages educators to teach with context in mind when they engage in grammar instruction, teaching function along with form (Fearn and Farnan). Studies show that grammar study focused on identification, description, and definition (IDD) fails to enhance students’ writing performance. Working without context and teaching using bland, unengaging, and condescending “skills cards” and other similar methods is simply not effective (Wilson 2). In a test study, one group of students learned grammar the traditional IDD way while another group looked at grammatical forms within a larger context and learned not only how to identify parts of speech but how to manipulate the grammar and use it in a text. “Students in the treatment groups demonstrated enhanced writing performance” (Fearn and Farnan 72). The take away lesson for educators is that writing can be the context in which we teach grammar. In this case, the learning of form recognition transferred to students’ writing and their holistic scores were dramatically improved.

Another, more recent teaching strategy that researchers have successfully employed is called controlled composition (Gorrell). Like teaching form with function, controlled composition also focuses on grammar and the smallest units of language. It is intended for students “whose biggest writing problem is lack of attention to written forms” (308). In this strategy, students work on transcribing word for word a short 150-200 word essay. The next part of the process requires student to take the same text and grammatically change one or two words in it. As they progress, the changes the students are asked to make become more complex and varied. This method has proved successful in teaching ESL students and has helped native English speakers as well. In contrast to other remedial methods, students who practice controlled composition “to not demonstrate the negative, resentful, inhibited attitude toward writing that is usually considered characteristic of the basic writer” (313).

Student writers can be very sensitive to how they think instructors perceive them. Another strategy used to instruct basic writers without making them feel inhibited and resentful is to help them work on their inferential reasoning skills (Zeller). “We should not underestimate the cognitive development basic writers bring to the writing class” (346). Many so-called basic writers are smart and know how to make inferential, logical connections between ideas and texts already. They just need help strengthening those ideas and becoming aware that working through such ideas is the basis of good writing. These students are capable of expressing their ideas verbally but may need more help turning that oral language into coherent, effective writing (Wilson 98). “What these students need are assignments that build on their ability and give them practice in analyzing and synthesizing” (Zeller 346).

General, Teacher-Based Strategies
Other teachers and researchers offer more general strategies. Several of these strategies can be linked under the idea that basic writing students need more practice in their writing in order to catch up to the mainstream. Often, basic writers come to classrooms without a lot of needed exposure to texts and writing forms in the first place. It is the educator’s job to give them access to more texts and more opportunities to write (Lunsford). This practice can be encouraged in informal settings or in more formal ones like the Supplemental Writing Workshop (SWW) as implemented in a small university in upstate New York (Rigolino and Freel). The SWW specifically encourages students to pre-write and spend more time incubating their ideas a la Donald Murray. Either by themselves or with instructors, tutors, or other students, basic wrighters need to work and rework their analyses and syntheses of texts, sometimes aloud, in order to make their writing more refined (Rigolino and Freel; Zeller; Wilson).

In addition to advocating the axiom that “practice makes perfect,” still other researchers offer other general strategies. Teachers of basic writing, even more than teachers of traditionally stronger students, should be self-aware. They need to have an understanding of their belief systems and axiologies when they go to teach. Teachers must also be reflective in their teaching, always testing their theories and revising their pedagogies based on what they learn and how their beliefs may change (Hillocks; Fulkerson).

Furthermore, educators need to be acutely aware of their students’ unique needs and socioeconomic situations (Holladay; Lunsford). Basic writers are not a homogenous group and cannot all be taught using the same methods. Above all, good teachers must be compassionate (Hillocks; Holladay; Shaughnessy). They must not only understand the uniqueness of their individual students but care about those students as well. Only then can educators empower students (Holladay 30; Rigolino and Freel; Soliday).

Teachers can empower by expanding students’ ideas of writing instead of limiting them with the forms and subjects they think basic writers can handle (Lunsford 70). Basic writers who are restricted feel the condescension and begin to see writing as a trap to test their abilities instead of a means of communicating with other people (Shaughnessy 7). To show their compassion, understanding, and desire to empower, researchers and teachers of basic writing overwhelmingly encourage educators to be transparent about their teaching methodologies, their motivations, and their goals for their students (Holladay; Lunsford; Shaughnessy). Teachers should explain as much as possible and help their students understand where the teachers are coming from.

Where Do We Go From Here?
Teachers and students alike will attest to the efficacy of the above specific and general strategies in certain situations and with certain populations. It is important that teachers have access to as many methods and strategies as possible before going out into the field, and they need to continue challenging and honing their pedagogies as much as possible to make sure they are still viable and effective in the real world of teaching. There needs to be more research done on new and different strategies for teaching basic writing. As teachers out in the field adopt new working strategies through trial and error, they need better ways to document their successes and better avenues to share that knowledge with other teachers. There needs to be more interaction among composition teachers at all levels. More dialogue means that more ideas can be shared and considered. Publications like Journal of Basic Writing and College Composition and Communication do these things, but they need to do more.

For works cited, see annotated bib

Analysis, Synthesis, and Application: Activity Theory, Genre Theory, and Teaching Writing

2008-04-27T09:35:00.000-07:00

Mandy Wright

The study of genre theory within Rhetoric and Composition is a relatively new branch of study, which is informed, fittingly, by work in several other disciplines. This information among disciplines is fitting because genre explains language interactions in terms of intertextuality, adoption, and change within and among the groups who utilize genres to serve a variety of social exigences. Since the arrival of genre on the comp scene, it has been amended through absorption several other theoretical concepts. Notable among recent applications is the connection of genre theory to activity theory in a continuing attempt to refine genre’s universality and its utility in studying human language interactions, including (and especially for this discipline) writing. Research in the field of Rhetoric and Composition in the past twenty years which has addressed genre theory, and especially that which has applied activity theory to it in use, has generally made a series of similar, although not necessarily sequential, moves. Each of these moves is characterized what I will call interelucidation: the example or analyzed material enriches the understanding of activity theory or genre theory, while activity theory and/or genre theory is used to analyze or explain the example. Thus even in defining, these two theories are continually synthetic. The three major moves are to explain or develop genre theory, to synthesize activity theory with genre theory, and to apply the synthetic theory. Applications of these theories not only elucidate both the theory and the subjects of analysis, but promote suggestions for the teaching of writing.

Move One: Development of Genre Theory in Rhetoric and Composition
First, the research defines genre theory, frequently adding new vocabulary and/or a new perspective (Bazerman; Devitt et al 7; Russell “Rethinking” 505; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary”). One example is Bazerman’s synthesis of theories of speech genres, action, and intertextuality. Charles Bazerman refers to speech acts, aligns a theory of written genres-as-actions with theories of Searle, and points out difficulties which ensue as a result of the differences between speech and written genres with regard to both extemporaneity and “polysemiousness.” His perspective, drawing on research in several fields, reveals that because utterances can be both interpreted and act in a variety of ways, an extension of Devitt’s genre sets (“Generalizing” 580) must be conceptualized to account for their (i.e. genre sets’) involvement in broader human contexts. Though this example does not discuss in depth the theories outside of rhetoric and composition upon which it is drawn, it will suffice for this discussion to say that in this example, as in others of defining genre, the theorist often draws on (an)other field(s) for vocabulary or perspective. In using his own examples to illustrate how genre is delineated, Bazerman also synthesizes the definition of genre with his own examples. His definitions and new uses of theory from other fields also help him to bring together the genre systems that he defines.

Move Two: Synthesis of Activity Theory with Genre
Another move is to, with varying amounts of explanation of activity theory as well as varying levels of justification, synthesize activity theory with genre theory (Kain and Wardle 114; Russell “Activity Theory” and “Rethinking”; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary” and “’Mutt Genres’” 4). For example, David Russell draws on Bazerman but then also submits that the cultural-historical activity theory of Vygotsky provides an ideal framework for analysis of how genres work in sets and systems. Russell and others identify an interpretation of activity theory that draws on Vygotsky via Leont’ev, Y. Engestrom, and Cole and Engestrom (Dias 16; Devitt et al 10; Kain and Wardle 120; Russell “Activity Theory” 53, to name a few). Again, here he offers the activity system itself as a unit of analysis to bring together the macro- and micro-levels of human interaction, and discusses at great length and with a number of concrete examples some ways in which his approach accounts for stability and change in individuals and in systems, as well as for the learning of writing itself. By applying activity theory along with genre theory to the study of those human interactions which involve writing, these researchers obtain the ability to discuss disparate acts, genres, and groups as unified by functioning within the human endeavor (Dias 16; Kain and Wardle 121; Russell “Activity Theory” 53; “Rethinking” 508; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary”).

Move Three: Applications of Activity and Genre
Once both activity theory and genre theory are delineated and synthesized, and important vocabulary and concepts are introduced, the objective of the research may be fulfilled. There are several ways in which the research utilizes these two theories; in application the synthesis of genre and activity with what is used to analyze becomes apparent. However, some distinctions may be made of application of genre and activity theory as follows:
•Activity theory and genre theory are used to analyze the “real world,” for our purposes to include the disciplines of the university.
•Activity theory and genre theory are used to analyze the world of school.
•Analyzed activities are used to describe or forge innovative explanations of genre and/or activity theories.
•Activity theory and genre theory are shown to unify false dichotomies seemingly inherent in analyzed situations.
•Genre and/or activity theory is used to suggest pedagogy for teachers of writing.
Again, in performing any one of these actions, the discussion frequently performs other actions either simultaneously or as an end result. One typical action is to compare the genres and activity systems of the “real world” to those of school, wherein the analysis may reveal some false dichotomies (such at that between content and form) of school genres. The activities and genres of school and the real world are used to explain activity and genre theories, both submitting new findings and illustrating that suggested dichotomies are synthesized. Finally, this entire analysis is used to suggest at least to minimal extant a pedagogy for teachers of writing which utilizes this knowledge to unify school and workplace genres and activities. This series of maneuvers generally describes several past and recent articles on this topic (Dias; Kain and Wardle; Russell “Activity Theory” and “Rethinking”; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary”). Indeed, even discussions of genre which have not included activity theory have still used examples to synthesize dichotomies, explain genre itself, and/or suggest pedagogy (Bawarshi; Carter; Devitt). Through these discussions the potential of genre and activity theories for the teaching of writing becomes clear.

Though the discussion of genre and application of activity theory to this discussion is a relatively young branch of a relatively young discipline, a few pioneers have begun to suggest ways in which the synthesis may continue to inform both research and pedagogy. The conversation thus far has focused primarily of first-year or general education writing courses, writing across the university, and writing in workplaces. Though much remains to be discovered about these systems and their intersections, both the analysis and pedagogical application of these theories to secondary education and the transfer of knowledge from high school to the university or workplace is thus far scarce (see Russell “’Kind-ness’” for one exception).

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Fostering Writing Development through Online Peer Review

2008-04-27T09:26:00.001-07:00

Kelly Whitney

Peer review has become a fundamental practice in composition courses over the past few decades. Instructors rely on students to provide feedback for others, with the hopes of improving both the writer and reviewer’s papers. As computers and technology become more prominent in the composition classroom, instructors are able to incorporate technology with fundamental activities such as peer review. Electronic peer review—also commonly referred to as e-peer review, online peer review, and web-based peer review—is simply moving the traditional face-to-face approach to peer review into an online format. For simplicity and consistency, I will refer to all modes of online peer review as OPR. More and more instructors are turning to OPR for several reasons; some teachers find it to be more convenient for the students, some use it to help create a paperless classroom, others prefer to dedicate class time to instruction, and many find the feedback to be of higher quality than in traditional peer review. Regardless of the reason, OPR is quickly replacing traditional face-to-face peer review, and students are profiting from what OPR offers that the traditional approach doesn’t.

Anonymity
A critical facet of peer review, anonymity is more easily achieved through OPR. Studies have shown that anonymous reviewers provide more critical feedback than identifiable reviewers (MacDonald). When kept anonymous, reviewers aren’t concerned with the feelings of the writers and can, in turn, provide more honest comments (Lu and Bol). Furthermore, anonymity is a key component of deindividuation. Deindividuation refers to situations when students stop seeing others as actual individuals—students remove interpersonal relationships with other members of a group. By separating individuals from social groups, they feel that they cannot be singled out by others and that others cannot single them out (Lu and Bol). Deindividuation, or the detachment of individuals from group dynamics, invites more critical and honest feedback, and anonymity is key to achieving it.

Additionally, students performed better in e-peer review when both the reviewer and the reviewed remained anonymous (Robinson). Reviewers claimed they felt uncomfortable reviewing friends or other students they knew, and therefore hesitated to provide critical or negative feedback. By keeping both the reviewer and the reviewed anonymous, students are “relieved from the social pressures and enabled to express themselves freely without considering interpersonal factors” (Lu and Bol 102). Anonymity allows students to review the text and not the person.

Multiple Reviewers
The importance of using multiple reviewers has been acknowledged by several researchers (Robinson; MacDonald; Althauser; Lu and Bol), and OPR is better able to accommodate this approach. Evaluating several texts has been shown to benefit both the reviewer and the reviewed. Reviewers are able to see alternative approaches to writing styles, become exposed to more writing in their genre, and are able to look at their own writing more critically after evaluating multiple pieces. Having several reviewers allows for the reviewed to receive much more critical feedback, which, if taken into account while revising, should improve their writing (MacDonald). While traditional peer review generally uses the multiple-reviewer approach, students are relieved of the hassle of flipping through numerous pages to find the comments with OPR; they find that simply clicking on each file to look at comments is much easier and organized (Althauser).

Implementing multiple reviewers also allows students to write multiple drafts more easily. Organized feedback can come more quickly from several readers in an online setting, giving the writer more time to revise (Althauser). And because revision is the key to improving student writing, it is important that students have ample time to receive feedback and incorporate the feedback into their writing, which OPR is better able to accommodate.

Student Engagement and Training
While study after study confirms that students who engage in OPR outperform those who practice traditional peer review, many students who participate in OPR are often unsure of how to approach it (MacDonald). Studies suggest that untrained students revert back to familiar forms of evaluation: They provide more feedback on lower-order concerns (grammar, spelling) than higher-order concerns (content, coherence) (Robinson). In order to achieve high-quality feedback, instructors must train their students on how to approach e-peer review (MacDonald; Robinson; DiGiovanni and Nagaswami).

Keith Topping offers seventeen parameters for Peer Review Typology to help both students and teachers in the peer review process. By following the typology, instructors will be able to better express their expectations for peer review and identify the rhetorical situation. For students, this typology will help them to understand the rhetorical situation and what is expected of them. These parameters identify the objectives (what students are to gain from peer review), focus (is it to be a summary or critique), and place (in or out of class), among several others (Topping 252). By following these parameters, students should have a better understanding of their expectations for peer review.

Yet even with training and preparation, students will only produce high-quality feedback if they maintain interest in OPR (Lin at al.). Instructors, therefore, need to be aware of students’ feelings towards e-peer review. There is a direct correlation between engagement and performance; they more interested students are in OPR, the better they will perform (Lin et al.). One study credits the novelty of OPR for student engagement; when the novelty wears off, students become disengaged (Xu). There must be open communication between teacher and students to identify concerns or lack of interest with e-peer review. Furthermore, instructors should create a venue in which students can discuss their thoughts and attitudes towards writing assignments with each other. Even though this might jeopardize anonymity, creating this open-discussion forum should foster more positive feelings towards both the assignments and OPR (Lin et al.).

Students’ Positions
When students are interested and adequately prepared for OPR, an overwhelming majority of them prefer this approach to traditional peer review. (Lu and Bol; Lin et al.; Robinson). Students claim they like the freedom of e-peer review; they can complete it on their own time and in the comfort of their own homes (Lin et al.). Furthermore, students find themselves staying focused and on task; they aren’t distracted by the social opportunities that develop in face-to-face peer review. Also, they claim that they have more opportunities to reflect on their thoughts before typing them, creating more focused and critical feedback. OPR also helps students retain information better, and fosters computer literacy (Lu and Bol; DiGiovanni and Nagaswami).

Implications for Further Research
Because OPR is such a new area of study, much more research is needed to identify the benefits of this approach and to support the procedures that previous research has established to be most efficient. While previous studies have provided excellent insight into the benefits of peer review, there is still much room for study. After reviewing the published literature concerning OPR, I have come up with three areas that further research needs to be conducted:
1.OPR pedagogy—Now that we know the benefits of OPR, we need to know how to teach our students to engage in it. Several studies indicate the importance of OPR, yet none offer suggestions on how to train our students.
2.Maintaining student interest—Studies have shown that maintaining interest is vital for the success of OPR, and highlight what happens when students lost that interest (Lin et al., Xu). With traditional face-to-face peer review, it is easier to take new approaches to maintain interest: Students can read aloud, take the assembly lines approach where each student is responsible for reviewing a specific aspect of the text, and the social relationships built with new group members all help to maintain student interest. Because the social context is removed in OPR, we need to create new ways to keep the students interested. More research is needed in this area to identify pedagogical approaches to keep the students interested.
3.OPR etiquette—Because of the interpersonal relationships that are created in traditional peer review, students are rarely disrespectful to the other group members. But if we take the anonymity approach to OPR—the approach that is deemed to be most efficient—deindividuation might make students victims; reviewers might not consider the writer while giving feedback, only the text. This could potentially lead to overly critical or disrespectful comments, ultimately hurting the OPR process. Researchers must investigate the extent of critical comments and offer an outline for OPR etiquette.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Assessing Written Language Proficiency of ESL Students

2008-04-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

Emily Watkins

In recent years, as the validity and integrity of standardized testing has been called into question, more research has been conducted investigating the validity of existing forms of second language proficiency assessment. Effectively assessing the written proficiency of ESL students has proven particularly difficult, as language is not only being assessed, but must be used as a medium to complete the assessment. Teachers of English as a Second Language and researchers will take particular interest in the literature reviewed, as it analyzes whether written proficiency of ESL students can be best assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized tests, or a student’s written work. The literature reviewed also addresses how to best evaluate the written work of ESL students.

Existing forms of Assessment
Traditionally, written language proficiency has been assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized tests and standardized tests. The validity of such forms of assessment has been challenged (Genesee, McNamara, Upshur). These assessments often attempt to assess the writing process and various components of “writing ability” such as vocabulary and syntax and have proven to be inadequate (McNamara). Simply grading the written work of students has also proven to be an inadequate means of assessing language proficiency, as writers can often avoid using vocabulary, grammar, etc. they are unsure of (Perkins).

The popularity of standardized tests as a means of assessment has grown in recent years, because of federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind and because they can be more fairly and objectively scored. Standardized tests may typically be more reliable than teacher-made assessments, but they often have cultural, racial, and gender bias, a huge disadvantage when assessing ESL proficiency.

The most recent suggestion to remedy the invalidity and bias of existing forms of assessment is the use of computerized assessments such as DIALANG. DIALANG, a computer program that consists of diagnostic foreign languages tests, provides a detailed analysis of strengths and weaknesses and offers immediate feedback (Alderson). Despite support and its more proven statistics, many schools may not have the resources to fund this kind of computer technology for students.

Alternate Forms of Assessment
Because of the invalidity of existing forms of assessment, researchers and teachers have sought other means of assessment in hopes of providing a “fairer” evaluation. No single test can produce entirely reliable and valid results, nor is one type of assessment transferable to all situations (Genesee, Perkins, Upshur). Rather than using an actual “test” as a form of assessment, it has been suggested that using the written work of students may prove to be a more accurate assessment of written language proficiency.

When assessing the written work of students, the use of performance based assessment is the most popular alternative to traditional testing (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins, Metcalf). Using portfolios, or collections of student work, is beneficial as it provides evidence of student progress and the developing knowledge and craft of writers (Bainer Jenkins, Cruickshank, Metcalf, Hurley, Villamil Tinajero). Because portfolios can include a variety of works, such as papers, journals, projects, and homework, they can be used to make judgment on a range of skills.

Journals have also proven helpful as a means of evaluation by serving as interactive conversations that force a student to take ownership of learning. Like the written work in a portfolio, journals also monitor proficiency and can be used to keep record of student progress. Journaling also provides insight that tests are unable to provide, such as insight into the student’s linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds and experiences, as well as their attitudes and goals (Genesee, Hurley, Upshur, Villamil Tinajero).

Evaluating written work
When evaluating the written work of ESL students, careful consideration should go into the grading process. To better chart progress rather than one single written product, it may be helpful for students to complete rough drafts and turn these in with a completed final copy (Hurley, Villamil Tinajero). This way, teachers can monitor the corrections and changes students make and base their evaluation off of more than one piece of work.

Essays and other written work produced by ESL students are often evaluated holistically. Holistic assessment, or simply designating a number or letter grade for student writing, is often insufficient for assessing the many components of student writing (Hamp-Lyons, Hurley, Perkins, Villamil Tinajero). In holistic assessment, diagnostic feedback is impossible and thus provides no help for students hoping to understand their grade assigned or curious about how to improve their writing (Hurley, Villamil Tinajero).

Rather than holistic assessment, the use of multiple trait assessment, or rubrics, is much more appropriate when evaluating the written work of ESL students. Multiple trait assessment takes into account the differences of ESL learners, whereas holistic scoring and essay tests do not. Multiple trait assessments also aid teachers in assigning grades more consistently and give the student feedback on particular aspects of their writing (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins, Metcalf, Hurley, Villamil Tinajero).

Conclusion
Research existing on the validity of existing forms of assessment is lacking. Research shows that the traditional methods of evaluating written language proficiency are insufficient and that no type of assessment (whether it be a pencil and paper test, a computerized test, or standardized test) is completely reliable. Although the use of computerized diagnostic tests such as DIALANG may more validly assess language proficiency, this method may not be feasible for all school districts. Alternate assessments, such as performance based assessments, can chart student progress and offer insight into student writing that other means of assessment cannot, but research on the validity of this means of evaluation is also lacking.

To close this gap, future research can be devoted to investigating valid, reliable, and non-biased means of assessment that can be easily implemented in schools. Although some research has been done that shows the benefits of multiple trait assessment over holistic assessment, further research can be conducted on how these types of measurements can be modified to suit ESL writing needs.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Family Literacy and Ownership

2008-04-27T09:15:00.001-07:00

Valerie Valentino

The area of concern for this literature review is family literacy. Studying family literacy aids one in gaining a better understanding of the effects of reading at home with one’s family. A child’s prior knowledge of the written word is often formulated at home with one’s parents before schooling. Through studying family literacy a teacher can understand how a child has developed their current knowledge. Teachers, therefore, can understand how to gear their classroom according to a child’s previous awareness. It is essential for parents to aid their child in developing their literacy through programs and helpful tips. A child’s literacy is often influenced by one’s environment or economic situation.

Parent Child Reading
Elsa Auerbahch explains how studies have demonstrated reading at an early age, with one’s parents, creates life long readers. According to Elsa Auerbahch, Paul Kropp, and Denny Taylor parent child reading is crucial to one’s development. Having parents advocate reading in the home through bedtime stories, everyday literary practices, or help with homework creates a critical thinker. Learning when not in school allows a child to connect what happens inside the classroom to what happens outside making literacy a meaningful tool. In addition, Paul Kropp emphasizes reading as a process starting with the family at infancy. Having the parent start a child’s literacy at infancy makes a substantial difference in one’s ability to connect with the world. This process of five stages, therefore, helps a child make sense of the world, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up since mom and dad are always doing it. Developing reading at home depends on a child’s future motivation. By cultivating family literacy a parent can create a future adult who reads.

Furthermore, Denny Taylor suggests family literacy can either strengthen or weaken a family. Taylor suggests family literacy to have a strong role in identity and status. For instance, Taylor details a situation where the parent is illiterate, however, the child grows up learning to read in school and becomes divided from one’s parent. A solution offered for this is to have one’s parent maintain a bond where reading is linked to talking. This not only produces literacy it creates a lasting bond.

The Effects of Literacy Programs in the Community
Promoting family literacy through family literacy programs can act as a core environment for success in one’s home and school life. Linda Phillips discuses how family literacy programs can break down the barriers between home and school, therefore, enabling teachers and parents to understand the way each defines, values, and uses literacy as part of cultural practices. When a family engages in a literacy program Gosse and Phillips suggest one can create a well-rounded reader for the child can come to terms with the differences between home and school literacy practices. The family by engaging in family literacy programs is evolving their literacy language practices and facing the literacy challenge together. Gross and Phillips stress the importance of the role of the family in order to sustain national literacy levels. The family is the foundation of literacy and by forming a community to support this; modern families can overcome challenges they are facing when they attempt to influence their children’s literacy and language development.

Accepting the role of family literacy in a community is an essential element for a child’s success. Denny Taylor focuses on family literacy in economic circumstances. To resolve the separation from parent and child in terms of knowledge, Taylor enforces the importance of community-based literacy programs. These programs, Taylor explains would relate to everyday lifestyle allowing everyone to communicate.

The Effects of Reading at Home
Paul Lesseman in “How Important is Home Literacy for Acquiring Literacy in School?” discusses how literacy was strongly related to a family’s socio-cultural context. Reading at home, at a young age, creates links between opportunity, instruction quality, and the social-emotional quality of informal home education. A conclusion is reached that reading at home, however, is not enough and should be enhanced with reading in school.

Reading at home with one’s family, according to Paul Kropp, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up. Reading at home creates a motivation for the future, which will ensure a child to grow into an adult who reads.

A Gap: Family Literacy and Ownership
Upon researching family literacy there was no information on the affects of family literacy and ownership. Does reading create a family ownership to the material one reads? If so, how does the family react to this bond? Does reading create an ownership of knowledge for the child? How does this influence a sibling relationship? How does family literacy and ownership change or motivate a child’s position in school, the friends one makes, or one’s participation? Literacy can give a person knowledge, which enables a person to put himself in a power position or a nurturing position.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

The Efficacy of Editing Practices: Literature Review

2008-04-27T09:08:00.000-07:00

Yvonne Teems

In addition to printing a newspaper every week or every day, an editor has many demands on his or her time and energy. Marketing managers are placing increasing pressure on editors to include content that will increase sales; publishers are nagging editors to organize or chair newspaper-sponsored events; and reporter positions need to be filled with trained writers who will keep the paper running while the editor tackles these responsibilities elsewhere. But hiring trained reporters is not always a task that can be crossed off of the to-do list with ease. Editors of small- to medium-sized papers often must hire novices right out of college, and those novices come with writing backgrounds that aren’t in sync with the newspaper environment. The editor must be aware of where the novice comes from and what the novice needs to learn in order to help the novice adapt to the new workplace.

The Novice Writer
The recent literacy history of the novice reporter in most cases will consist of his time at a university. The way the writer writes and learns in a university is very different from how the writer operates in the workplace. Editors, in trying to adapt novice writers to the workplace, must understand the environment from which writers are coming in order to help them adapt. Students in a university are accustomed to a type of learning called “guided participation,” in which students function in a system where the purpose is student learning (Dias et. al. 186). Students understand that the activities in which they engage – assignments, lectures, presentations – are all created for the purpose of their education. Because students can easily recognize opportunities for learning, they will – when properly motivated – be able to learn to the best of their abilities (Dias et. al.) The fact that students recognize that every activity in which they engage is created for their learning might lead students to adopt an ego-centric way of thinking about all tasks, or what is called “an individualist ethos” (Dias et. al. 198) This “individualist ethos” is supported in the university because often individual students can adapt assignments to themselves. That is, if a student completes the task in his own way, but the task does not conform completely to assigned standards, as long as he learns something, he still is successful (Adam). What further reinforces this “individualist ethos” is the fact that often a professor’s comments on student work are not taken into a revision process because most students are not asked to revise. This leads students to believe that they can take or leave the professor’s opinion on how to create the best text. In other words, students adapt assignments to themselves, as opposed to adapting themselves to assignments, or to someone else’s goals (Adam).

The above details describe the novice on his first day in the newsroom: Ego-minded, theory-laden and unaware of how to adapt to his first new writing environment. The editor wants to help the novice transition into a person who is a contributing member of the team that will help produce a newspaper every day or week. This means the writer has to be aware that he is part of an organization, and his work is a contribution to that organization (Dias et. al.). The writer also must acquire practical skills that build on the theory he learned in school so that he can become a productive member of the team who can also stand on his own two feet. In order to help the novice writer transition from where he is upon entering the workplace to where he needs to be, the editor needs to help the writer socialize; help the writer find new ways to learn; and help the writer gain practical skills.

Socialization
One of the biggest tasks the novice must complete in order to adapt to his new writing environment is adapt well to his new work environment. That is, the novice writer must be socialized into his new community so that he can understand and adapt to the community’s culture, politics and workplace norms (Katz). The better the writer adapts to the new community, the more easily he will adapt to the new writing requirements of his job (Katz, MacKinnon, Dias et. al.). Indeed, it is not just a matter of accepting writing requirements, but also the writer must understand the culture of the organization so that he can write to further its specialized goals.

New Ways of Learning
Socializing into a new writing environment involves adapting to the new learning methods of that environment. In the workplace environment, novices must adapt to the “legitimate peripheral participation” learning environment, which means he must figure out how to learn when learning is not the ultimate goal of the exercise (Dias et. al. 187). The novice simply has to join in the work and learn as he goes along, trying to pick up new pieces of knowledge on the way. The purpose of his work is not to learn from it, but it is to complete the work. Even though the purpose of the work is not to learn from it, he still can learn by doing it (Dias et. al.) Because the novice is accustomed to the academic, “guided participation” way of learning in which learning is the ultimate goal, the novice may not recognize new ways to learn (Dias et. al. 186). The novice may not recognize all the available mentors to learn from or the opportunities in which the writer can learn, such as in conversations with defined or undefined mentors (Dias et. al.)

Because the novice writer may not be aware of potential learning opportunities or may be accustomed to academic-styled opportunities, the editor may employ several tactics to ensure the writer socializes into the new workplace and improves as a writer. Many suggest a “coaching” or “review” style of teaching writing, in which the editor sits down with the novice to go over the first attempt at the writing task (Adam; Katz 61; Wiist 70). The coaching style does several things to help the novice adapt and learn: It first offers an opportunity for the “coach” to socialize the writer into the new community by mentioning here and there details about the workplace culture, politics and norms (Katz 61). The one-on-one session also allows the editor to help the novice adjust his attitude if he’s thinking like a student: that his writing is for him, and not the organization; or that an editor’s revisions are just suggestions, and not requirements (Adam).

Helping Novices Gain Practical Skills
Managers also can employ several other tips to help novice writers adapt: Provide novice writers with good feedback in addition to critical comments; avoid placing too much input on a draft; allow novice writers opportunities to observe senior writers because they are good mentors; require novices to read other newspapers and older copies of that newspaper in order to better adjust to the new discourse community; and start novice writers out with smaller tasks and allow them to build up to more responsibility (Beaufort).

In the newsroom, there are some specific things editors can do to help new reporters adapt to the workplace and new writing environment. Just as the novice worker enters the workplace with a university-influenced background, the reporter often enters the newsroom with a journalism school-influenced background. The journalism student is conditioned to write in a way that is not precisely in sync with what is demanded of the novice reporter in the newsroom. Journalism students who come from most journalism schools will have a deep background in journalism theory, but not necessarily a lot of training in practical skills (Arwood, Hickey). The practical skills journalism students do obtain can be narrow-minded: Journalism schools often place a heavy emphasis on the inverted pyramid style of journalism writing. In addition, while journalism students will know communications history, they may not know much about how a newspaper functions as a business (Arwood). Unlike journalism novices in the past, students coming out of journalism schools today will have less of a focus on their duty to serve the community, have less basic knowledge in subjects such as history and economics and have less of a grasp of current events (Hickey). In addition to the deficiencies in necessary general knowledge novices will have upon entering the newsroom, journalism school graduates also will be accustomed to a different editing style than that of the newsroom. Journalism school graduates have been edited in the news writing classroom in a similar way to how they’ve been “corrected” in the composition classroom: with markings on a paper that’s handed back to the student with no requirement for revision (Wiist). Additionally, the journalism classroom has forced students to focus on writing a rhetorical lead, instead of writing the lead in order to direct the rest of the story (Pitts).

Need for Further Research
While many have made conclusions about how best to help writers adapt to their new workplaces and become better writers, little work has been done that explores the best ways to help novice reporters adapt to newsrooms and become better writers. Editors seem to know what they want, and the differences between what they want and what they’re getting in the classes graduating from journalism schools have been defined. But little research has been done to explore what editing methods are the most common in newsrooms and which of those methods work best to help novice writers improve. How effective are common newsroom editing practices today? The answer to this question will help the editor cultivate productive reporters, discourage turnover and save time and money in the long run.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Students Entering the Workplace: Writing Transitions

2008-04-27T09:03:00.000-07:00

Carly Schott

Preparing students to succeed in their places of work upon graduation is undoubtedly a main focus of any university. An essential component of this success is competency in writing, a communication skill that is vital in most fields of work. The question of how to adequately prepare a student for post-graduation writing tasks has been debated and explored by researchers from many different angles. The focus of this research has been to evaluate student transition from classroom to workplace, noting the influences from writing at school and the subsequent writing obstacles faced as a new employee. Many of the discussions seek to understand why students struggle in workplace writing upon graduation, and how to improve this transition.

Why Do Students Struggle With the Transition?
Understanding why students struggle with this writing transition can help shed light on what both university professors and workplace managers can do to help them be more productive writers. Recent research has incorporated genre theory, emphasizing that writing in the workplace and writing for the university means writing in two different genres (Adam 168-169). As such, the exigences that shape these genres are different, and result in confusion for the student’s transition (170). In addition, the nature of the two settings that create the genres often are not aligned, affecting a new employee’s ability to produce effective writing (“Write Where You Are” 45). Truly, a major difference in these two settings is the primary goal of writing tasks. At the university level, the goal of writing is “clearly and explicitly for students to learn;” in contrast, the workplace tasks are “focused on material or discursive outcomes and in which participants are often unaware of the learning that occurs” (46).

To further illustrate this idea of genre discrepancy, Christine Adam conducted a study that focused on differences in reading practices of university professors and workplace managers, as they “responded to texts of less experienced members of the two communities” (170). The study found that for the professor and manager, the purpose of responding to texts is different, the processes of reading texts are different, and the comments written on texts are different (172-176). For example, the purpose of a professor reading a student’s text is evaluative, while the purpose of a manager reading a text is to make revisions to create the best possible text that will most likely effect future action (172-173). This is due to the fact that at the university, guidance primarily takes place prior to the writing task being completed, while in the workplace, guidance and collaboration occur after completion of the initial draft (“Write Where You Are” 45). Because the writer’s text should be constructed with sensitivity to audience needs and wants, this presents a problem when audience’s expectations change after students enter the workplace.

An additional reason why students may struggle with this writing transition is grounded in the idea of identity negotiation, as newcomers must adjust to new written practices that effect identity when entering the workplace from the university. New writing expectations may be unfamiliar to a newcomer, in contrast with their personal values, or “may ask them to give up some measure of authority to which they believe they are entitled” (Wardle 5). In addition, a newcomer transitioning from a university to the workplace may be given some new authority, but then have it taken away when he or she does not quickly adopt the new writing conventions and practices that go along with that authority (7). In order to achieve enculturation into the workplace, a newcomer’s identity is often challenged and shaped by the new community, and their shortfalls in writing may not be a result of ability level, but identity issues (5). Students coming from the university into workplace settings come with their own sets of beliefs, personal expectations for their position within the new community, and ways of writing – their own personal identities. To become a full participant, this identity is negotiated: “new workers must find ways to engage in the work that other community members do, including the writing they do; newcomers must be able to imagine their own work – and writing – as being an important part of a larger enterprise.” Because of the genre discrepancies between the university and workplace previously outlined, this is often a struggle for newcomers.

How Can Students Be Helped?
At School
Many studies have been conducted with the goal of learning how to structure classroom writing tasks so that they best prepare students to enter the workforce. Because the university goal of learning does not align with the future-orientated goals of the workplace, it has been a challenge for researchers to establish clear course structures that ensure that students are exposed to the kinds of writing practices they will experience in the workplace. In order that assignments reflect the workplace nature of future-action, writing tasks “need to have consequences beyond the classroom (and the student’s grade) in order for the student to fully appreciate the prospective aspect of workplace writing” (Adam 179).

Besides the hands-on experience of an internship or co-op, actually gaining experience with assignments that are future-oriented proves to be difficult for students in the university. For example, a class where students simulate workplace reports in their field still has the primary goal of learning, which is in conflict with the primary goals of the workplace (“Write Where You Are” 32). As a way to reconcile this discrepancy at the university, students themselves can be charged with the task of defining the course goals and actions of the class, which hopefully align with the teacher’s goals (Dias 26). Then, “in small groups students can begin to define the goals and frame the tasks that will help them realize these goals” (26). This encourages the students to look at and situate themselves within the larger university, a process they will have to undertake in the workplace.

There are other course structures that also accurately reflect workplace settings. For example, Aviva Freedman and Christine Adam analyzed a fourth year practicum course in a business school that is able to align its writing goals to that of the workplace. The students are broken up into groups and assigned real clients who need their workplace computerized in some way. The students interact with the clients, visit their workplace to interview participants there, and must produce several documents outlining their computerization plans for the client. Ultimately, many of the clients end up using the proposals of the students. As a result, this course is answering a real-life exigence, the goal of which is not to get a satisfactory grade but to provide the clients with their services and expertise. Overall, this course was successful in mimicking the workplace “in the social roles taken on by the students and instructor, in the writers’ sense of audience, in the textual features, and in the responding and collaborative practices of the instructor” (“Bridging the Gap” 143).

At Work
Undoubtedly, when “students leave the university to enter the workplace, “they not only need to learn new genres of discourse, they need to learn new ways to learn such genres” (“Write Where You Are” 53). In order to ensure that their employees produce effective writing, managers must realize their needs as newcomers. Students should be made aware of their new goals and audiences, so managers must help students “see how their new readers’ roles and contexts shift their response” (Adam 177). Because their reader’s roles are focused on revising, not evaluating like at the university, “a program of sheltering or coaching for new employees can be used to make explicit the role of revision in learning how the workplace operates” (178).

In addition, managers must be sensitive to the identity and values that are challenged, shaped, and redefined as newcomers enter the workplace (Wardle 5). The values and attitudes of an organization have a significant influence on the writing produced, values that are specific even to various divisions within the organization (Ledwell-Brown 212). For example, a marketing division would have a different “desired outcome” and “prescription for writing” than an M.I.S division within a company (215). These various writing practices reflect such values as teamwork and commitment to high quality. To aid in a newcomer’s transition to the writing in a workplace, a manager can make explicit the goals and values of the company and specific divisions, so that the new employee will be aware of her identity within the larger enterprise.

Questions for Further Investigation
Much of the current research investigates university versus workplace writing, without much of a focus on the actual student and his or her transition. A long-term study on the evolution of a student’s writing early at the university until a few years into a new work environment would be insightful research. A study like this would emphasize the student’s perspective and provide a fuller picture of the writing transition. Also, there is not a lot of research concerning workers who do not attend a university, and how this has an effect on the writing that they have to produce in their fields. For example, if a person enters the workforce right after high school, is this a significant disadvantage when it comes to writing tasks? How does their writing transition compare to the transition of someone who went to a university? All in all, these questions can be answered with case-studies focused on various students and their writing transitions.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Literacy and Class Issues

2008-04-27T08:57:00.000-07:00

Arnecia Patterson

Class issues occur when the equalizing effect of literacy is thwarted by pedagogy that propagates hierarchical literary frames and textual responses instead of broadening students’ familiarization with writing and writing responses. At the university level, where instructors can be stylistic and liberal, there is a chance that the classroom boundaries can widen and systemic mandates can be broken to recognize the value of myriad learning styles and how they were shaped in formative
years. Writing instruction in college and university programs can reach across class lines and empower students through familiarization of the diverse discourse communities they will encounter in their lives.

By the time students matriculate through the primary and secondary levels of English instruction they are exposed to writing instruction that privileges the goals of the teacher, the institution represented by the teacher and the formats for teaching sanctioned literature of the approved canon. Secondary school writing instruction gives ample consideration to test scores, grammatical, syntactical, structural and ideological “rightness” and to students’ abilities to achieve along these lines. Less attention is paid to how students have been socialized to approach writing and how they respond to texts. Furthermore, in writing instruction the grammatical, syntactical and structural attributes of texts are couched in a context that does not consider the identity of the students. Instead, the classist monikers: black, working, middle, upper class, thug, queer, woman, white, Jew, man, and WASP lurk nearby, influencing axiologies of writing instruction and responses to literature.

THE CLASS ASSUMPTIONS OF HEIRARCHICAL TEACHING
Class labels assume that students’ acquisition of primary language skills acquired through socialization influence how they learn secondary language skills in formal settings. These serve as lines of demarcation between primary and secondary language acquisition and make assumptions about how formative language skills are shaped. Critical Theory pedagogues believe there is a marginalized class of individuals who lack critical consciousness of language; however these theorists base their assumptions on what they can glean from public literate artifacts, the public transcript, without accessing the hidden transcript as Ellen Cushman did in her ethnographic study, Critical Literacy and Institutional Language (Ellen Cushman).
While Cushman lived in Quayville, an upstate New York, inner-city community where she worked as a literacy tutor and conducted a three-year ethnographic study of two adult women who looked for housing following an eviction. Cushman’s study showed the participants’ had an awareness of institutional language and successfully refined their primary vernacular language in order to make interaction with institutional “gatekeepers” more successful (267). When one of the subjects needed to phone a landlord for an apartment, she asked Cushman to “help [her] sound more respectable, you know White” (259). The participant not only had critical consciousness of institutional language, but access to knowledge (through Cushman) that would increase that awareness. Her request for Cushman’s help signals the co-intentional learning referred to by Friere’s historic text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that contends the “oppressed…must perceive the reality of oppression as a limiting situation which they can transform” (34). The pedagogy has to “be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity (33). This is an argument for a shift in the power dynamic of the teacher-student relationship, one that foregoes class assumptions and hierarchical practices. Wider boundaries in discursive practices can cut across class assumptions to allow influential exchanges in which the hidden transcript unfolds; students no longer need to hide unique literacy and critical consciousness is increased.
Even when class assumptions about the acquisition of language are proven, it need not follow that language use is undermined by any context. In classrooms where all students achieve highly there may be distinctions of literacy related to social and economic classes. Yet the distinctions may not undermine further language acquisition. In Lowry Hemphill’s study of high-achieving teens, she found that “students…draw upon narrative practices from their families and communities…” (294) Working-class students offered detail-rich, reflexive responses to poetry that Lowry believed reflected primary skills in oral storytelling traditions; whereas, the middle-class students “stand outside text and show ‘big idea’ understanding” (291 293). Lowry suggests that teachers keep in mind that the differences in students’ responses to discourse have value and complexity that reflect a number of factors. She recommends differences be made a part of the English curriculum through peer discussion, teacher critique and the critique of outside professionals to discourse presented in classroom practices (296 297).

RESPONSES TO CLASS LABELS
In the hierarchical gender construct of Jewish culture contemporary, female writers are giving a different voice to traditional folk characters (Ruth Bienstock Anolik). Their revisionist writing practices have hardly toppled the male-dominated structure in full, but have exercised a public forum in which the entire culture can “grapple with the traditional powerlessness of women in Jewish culture, the curtailing of their authority and of their voice” (40). Additionally, re-writing the voice of tradition can recognize the intersectionality theory of socially and literary constructed labels (Karen Gaffney). Intersectionality theory is useful in analyzing the discourse of writers who recognize the effect of categories in their writing. Students could learn to identify with discourse that bears a marked resemblance with or difference to their experiences, interpretations and written responses. Gaffney looks at Dorothy Allison’s novel Cavedweller as her way of fictionalizing the labels that Allison has worn her entire life. Cavedweller is not part of the English literary canon, but Gaffney’s treatise on it offers an analytical aid in meaning-making that cuts across class labels. Through intersectionality an academic gaze is maintained while class differences are recognized. Even in the larger, institutional literary canon teaching across class differences has helped to make “an imaginative connection intended to invite alliance and coalition” (Irma Maini; Jeanne Phoenix Laurel; Jane Wood; Yasmin DeGout; Deborah Thompson. Arlene Wilner; Ary Trager; Victoria Boynton; Stephen Spencer; Karen J. Hall; Dian Killian). In a two part roundtable discussion at the Northeast Modern Language Association meeting, college English instructors are teaching literature in ways that cross-fertilize likeness and examine differences to stretch the former meaning associated with these texts.

A THEORY OF EMPOWERMENT IN WRITING STUDIES
Given what we know, what are the tenets of a Theory of Empowerment that teaches the academic discourses and the discourses needed in students’ lives beyond their educational careers? As an alternative to focusing learning on the objectives of institutions, a Theory of Empowerment suggests a problem-posing, co-intentional learning environment that is inclusive of students’ unique responses to texts, established general knowledge and the means by which formative language has been acquired and used.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Transitioning from the college classroom to the workplace

2008-04-27T08:49:00.000-07:00

Jennifer Osterday

College is a time to help students increase their knowledge and become prepared for the careers they choose. Unfortunately, some colleges are failing to help prepare their students. Research on how students are transitioning into the workplace has shown that universities are failing to teach students the necessary skills for future success in their careers. There are clearly some areas that a university needs to work on to better prepare their students to succeed in their new workplace. This paper will discuss why students are unable to transition in the workplace as well as what improvements need to be made in the classroom.

Classroom learning versus workroom learning
Research found that one of the main difficulties students faced when entering the workforce was the change in expectancies on how people should learn. A university classroom situation is set up so the focus is on the individual. The workplace, however, has more of a collaborative culture as everyone is working together for a common goal (Freedman, “Write” 54). Immediately the newcomer in the workplace must discover how to adjust their previously scholastic focus of getting the personal good grade to the work world focus of helping each other out.

Abstract Concepts
In order for a student to adjust to the collaborative culture of a workplace, it is important for universities to implement the ideas of abstract concepts such as genre, discourse community, meta-cognition (Freedman, “Write” 195). Genre and discourse community are key concepts for students to understand, as a subject of Beaufort’s pointed out: “‘I remembered the stuff I read in your dissertation about discourse community and genres and I realized that’s what I needed to think about’” (Beaufort, “Bridging” 185). Understanding these concepts allows the student to begin to comprehend what type of genre fits into their discourse community at work.

Transferring knowledge
A big problem people face in a job is the difficulty of having to remembering how to “learn” all over again. Freedman explains, “Consequently, when students move from university to workplace, they do not necessarily recognize the opportunities from learning in the new setting because they are used to the way they learned in the old setting. (“Write” 51). Instead of it being so overwhelming, the individual can go into the workplace and understand how to apply what they know in the new setting (Beaufort, “Bridging the Gap”). If students are taught how to evaluate their work and improve upon it (instead of getting the graded paper and throwing it away) they will be better prepared for a job.

Failing Grading System
The grading systems implemented by schools add to the burden of students transitioning to the workplace. Students are focused entirely on getting a high letter grade instead of thinking about what they are learning (Beaufort, “Bridging”, Reither). Students are often going through the motions of getting the minimum done to pass the class; therefore, the writing is not improving throughout the four years of college. As seen in a study conducted by Freedman and Adam, when the focus is shifted from the grade to working with an actual company, the students worked more on learning how to write appropriately for the genre of the company (Freedman, “Bridging”). This type of situation allows students to get a glimpse of what it is like to write for someone other than the professor.

Changing the professor
This idea of not writing for the professor is further seen as the readings also claimed that teachers need to be less like a professor and more of a project manager in the classroom. The professors need to help students understand how to collaborate as a team. Often students struggle in the workplace because they have become so independent they do not know how to work with others. The idea of having more group work with local businesses was common among the experts. This way the writing the students perform is a reflection on the instructor and the institution, unlike typical writing courses where it is just a reflection of the student’s competence (Dias, et al. 209). The idea of “learning by doing” is important for the classroom to have (Joliffe).

Becoming Self-Motivated
Also, the way someone approaches a new workplace can help or harm their transition. It is important for students to be self-motivated when they begin their job (Pare, Joliffe). Studies showed that students expected their internships to be similar to the classroom in that they would be taught what to learn and what to do. This, however, is not the case. Interns have to learn when to take advantage of certain situations to make the most of their experience. Unfortunately, interns are too accustomed to being told when and how to learn in a classroom setting (Freedman, “Write”). Thus, when entering the workplace the new employee must be ready to take in everything and learn all they can. Being stubborn with the new discourse community can be harmful to the individual. This was obvious in a study done by Wardle which showed how not appreciating the culture and value of a workplace can cost a person their job.

Conclusion
The classroom will never fully be able to represent the workplace. However, it is clear that key concepts can be instilled in students while still in college to make the transition into the workplace easier. The research provided makes a strong argument for what needs to be done. Unfortunately, there seems to be no longitudinal studies on the topic. All of these experts on the topic had great ideas on what should be done, but no studies have proven that these ideas will actually work. If what they are claiming is that college students are not being fully prepared for the workplace, does this mean that a high school graduate will have difficulty adjusting into the workplace just as much as a college graduate? It would be beneficial to see the long term effects on how students progress in the workplace after learning the key ideas in this paper. If some students benefit initially, it would be interesting to see whether they also benefit more in the longer term as well.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Anxiety and Timed Testing

2008-04-27T08:42:00.000-07:00

Megan Murphy

Knowledge of student anxiety in timed writing assessments has great importance for students, teachers and writers alike. It is important because almost everyone has experienced some aspect of participation in a timed writing assessment, whether teaching or taking one. The reason for studying this topic is to gain insight in how much anxiety plays a part in the way a student performs on writing assessments when they are timed. Because timed writing assessments are a controversial topic in academic discourses throughout the United States, many composition theorists and rhetoricians have studied how they affect students.

Timed Writing Assessments
Performance assessments are used in a wide range of fields. They were originally used as political instruments before they moved into school districts as a measurement of performance and success (Shavelson et al). They have become present in almost all of the states across the U.S. and are now acting as a national scoreboard for schools, displaying their student’s scores in competition which other school districts (Simmons). These performance assessments were originally created with the “intent to develop measures of student achievement that focus on student ability to apply their conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in novel situations […] if assessment systems focus on ‘high order thinking’ the reasoning goes, curriculum and teaching can be changed” (Shavelson et al, 215).

These performance assessments in turn were created as statewide testing that first came into affect in the U.S. in the 1970’s (Simmons). These timed assessments originally took place in the state of Florida and teachers and students alike have been struggling with them ever since. Other states followed in the footsteps of Florida and began their own versions of timed assessments. Florida felt the need to put these tests into motion because of the way their State Department of Education responded to the legislative Accountability Act that was created in 1972 (Simmons). The original set up for the tests was multiple choice and a writing section. But linguists and rhetoricians did not judge the writing section, they were judged by a simple writing team (Simmons). These statewide tests along with other timed writing assessments have caused controversy in a large amount of school districts and have challenged students in a new, debatable way.

Student Anxiety
Theorists have found that student’s feel anxiety in school in a wide range of ages, beginning in elementary school and lasting until their later years in high school or even college (Hill et al). This anxiety that students are feeling is most often caused by their fear of evaluation, which is often caused by timed writing assessments and test taking. This test anxiety that students are feeling is defined as “an unpleasant feeling or emotional state that has physiological and behavioral concomitants, and that is experienced in formal testing or other evaluative situations” (Hill et al, 106). More recently, this test anxiety has become more prevalent in children as young as preschool age and emerging into elementary school, when it then stays with them until they are pressured to take standardized tests in high school (Hill et al; Petroskey). This anxiety has started at such a young age because parents put too much pressure on their children to perform unrealistically for their age. Also, as the children get older, they not only feel pressure to perform well in school from their parents, but they also sense a need for competition against their fellow classmates (Hill et al; Simmons). Too many of them have unfair evaluations in front of the class which in turn only makes them feel more nervous about performing well on tests so that they are doing as well, if not better that their classmates (Hill et al).

Apprehension was also found as an anxiety trait in timed writing assessments (Petroskey). Apprehension plays a large part in student anxiety in writing because the students become aware of what is weighing on that specific test and what it holds for their future. Students are recognizing the pressure that is put on them to do well and therefore are more apprehensive in the classroom, causing the teaching of writing to be more difficult for the instructors (Petroskey). This apprehension also causes the students to be more nervous about writing in timed assessment situations because they know their evaluation has an effect on their potential and “the consequences of test performance assume a more important role in school” (Hill et al, 107). Students have a right to feel this apprehension though, as timed writing assessment scores weigh heavier on their placement into the next grade or even receiving a diploma at graduation (Petroskey 73; Hill et al).

A “writing apprehension instrument” has been created for teacher’s to use in instructional settings that can help both teachers and students have a better guide of who needs help with their writing and who does not (Petroskey, 74). If the teachers use this instrument and then realize who needs more help with their writing, the students would in turn feel less anxiety about their writing and would have a better attitude about it. If the students get enough instruction about their writing before taking the standardized tests, they would be able to perform better and feel less stress (Petroskey).

Time Affecting Anxiety
Many studies have been done on whether the time allowed for a writing assessment has an affect on a student’s anxiety. Timed writing assessments have been given in the form of both “power tests” and “speed tests”(Powers et al, 433). Power tests “contain questions of varying difficulty and […] afford all test takers ample time to consider and respond to every test question” while on the other hand, speed tests “present only very easy questions that, if reached, can be answered correctly by virtually all test takers” (Powers et al, 433). The creators of standardized tests have been found to set it up in power test format, because although “most standardized tests are intended primarily to reflect test takers’ intellectual ‘power’, (rather than the rate at which they work) virtually all such tests usually involve some element of speed, however minor” (Powers et al, 433).

Test creators feel that they have to include the time aspect of the tests so that it is fair to every test taker, and that no one person is treated differently than the other. But it was found that this specific time deadline is what caused most test takers anxiety because they are put on “a time constraint” and have the “pressures of time” (Powers et al, 434). It is this exact time constraint that causes student test takers to feel anxious in writing. Many feel that the time constraint can “diminish a writer’s authenticity” and that they may not have enough time to express exactly what they want in the time given (Powers et al, 434). The allotted time may make the standardized test seem fair to everyone, but they are not necessarily a good representation of how well a person writes.

One study found that in comparing student’s performance statistics on timed and un-timed tests, “there was very little relationship between anxiety and performance in the un-timed condition, whereas the relationship was much stronger in the timed condition” (Walen et al, 363). Also included in this study, three different individuals were studied on their emotional responses to a timed test. Two adult women were examined who were to reflect on their past experiences during “taking skills-tests” and a third grade girl who was currently taking these tests (Walen et al, 361). It was found that their negative emotional responses didn’t have anything to do with the specific course (mathematics) or to the fact that they were being assessed, but more towards the timed nature of the tests they had to take. There was also a direct correlation between the anxiety the students felt about doing well on the assessment and their achievement (Walen et al; Hill et al).

Conclusion
Although there has been a large amount of research done on the way timed writing assessments have affected student’s anxiety, theorists have yet to find a way to resolve the problem. It is widely recognized across the United States that children as young as elementary school age extending to students entering high school and college still deal with anxiety and apprehension towards timed tests. If researchers could find a way to analyze a student’s writing abilities without putting them into a timed test-taking situation, then they would be able to eliminate the anxiety that they feel towards the event.

For works cited, see annotated bib.

Computers and Technology in the University Writing Classroom

2008-04-26T04:49:00.000-07:00

Liza Winkel

Overview
As technology continues to improve and progress, it carries profound implications for the university composition classroom. While research extends back to the 1970s, technology has changed so quickly that much of this research is insignificant when examining the impact of computers and technology in the writing classroom today. In more recent research, many scholars have studied and questioned the impact of technology on students’ critical thinking abilities in composition. While much research has supported the use of computers and web-based discussion as a positive pedagogical approach that empowers students, others question how technology affects students’ perceptions of knowledge and success. Because of the repercussions of technology use on students of varying technological capabilities, some researchers have observed how technology as a topic can be used as a catalyst for students’ critical thinking as they examine its impact on society and their own individual writing.

Peer Review and Web-based Discussion
In the last ten years, there has been considerable research into web-based classroom discussion and peer review (Anderson, Hudson, Latchaw, Samuels). When students reviewed each other’s essays through email, researchers found that they were more likely to respond to one another in a more conversational manner, turning the process into a more informal discussion rather than formal critique (Anderson 186). In these informal discussions through email, students offered suggestions about “higher-order writing concerns,” such as another student’s choice in content and main ideas rather than “surface-level writing concerns,” such as spelling and grammar errors (Anderson 185). In computer-supported classrooms, students working on paper drafts in class on computers were able to informally discuss their work with their professor and classmates as it was being written which often gave them more confidence in their writing abilities (Palmquist 33).

Researchers have sought to learn whether using computers for online discussion and peer review sessions helps improve students writing and critical thinking abilities, as well as their willingness to participate in discussion. Using online discussion forums, such as WebCT or listserv, students were more comfortable expressing their opinions in shorter arguments that also demonstrated more consideration for “evidence and reasoning” than they showed in writing a full-length essay (Latchaw 114). Web-based discussion allows students more of an opportunity to have a voice in a social environment in which they may feel undervalued (Samuels 108). From these “mini-arguments” in online discussions, students are able to develop more confidence in their critical thinking abilities, and can also use their short discussion as “an intermediate phase of the writing/thinking process” to develop a full-length essay (Latchaw 111). Because of its more informal structure, students are sometimes more comfortable expressing honest opinions and asking more challenging questions through online discussion mediums. This comfort can empower students to question the academic discourse in their writing, as well as allow them to think critically on their own without an authority figure, such as a professor, influencing their thinking process (Samuels 108). However, Robert Samuels argues that in order for students to truly feel empowered in online discussions, there should be an “absence of a unifying traditional authority or belief system” (119). Then, when placed in a traditional classroom discussion, students may feel more inclined to participate in class discussion when they do not feel they might have the “wrong” answer (Samuels 125).

Negative Impact of Technology on Critical Thinking
While web-based discussion may improve students’ critical thinking abilities in some cases, the quickness and convenience of technology can sometimes thwart students’ desire to think on their own (Kimme Hea, Reid). In one study, an instructor asked her students to write a short opinion piece in their web discussion. Instead of writing their opinions, the students immediately turned to Internet search engines to find answers because they have become accustomed to finding the right answer on the Internet (Kimme Hea 339). As technology continues to evolve and improve, students have access to the Internet through their personal computers and cell phones at anytime of the day, allowing them to constantly encounter new ideas that influence what they choose to write about or use in the classroom (Reid 72) . As they browse websites, power points, blogs, etc. over the Internet, their composition becomes “shaped by a network of interactions that lie beyond the scope of the conventional authorial narrative” (Reid 72). Professors “cannot control the flow of information into the course community” which raises questions as to what ideas students are truly thinking about on their own (Reid 73).

Critical Thought on Technology, Knowledge, and Power
As students become more accustomed to using technology and the Internet as necessary tools in their academic lives, researchers question how students view technology in terms of truth and knowledge (Duffelmeyer, Hudson, Kimme Hea). If students are in the habit of turning to the Web for answers, what do they believe about knowledge? And if technology is imperative in students’ lives, what do technologically-sound students think about students who do not have technological skills? Because of the heightened use of technology in the classroom and the workplace, literacy now includes one’s proficiency in technology; without computer knowledge, a person cannot function in many academic and workplace environments (Hudson 93). Oftentimes the people who are ahead in mastering technology view the groups who are behind as “unable to master the Web and deploy it as it should be deployed—to achieve economic gain and intellectual freedom” (Kimme Hea 334). For many students and workers, the Internet is knowledge, and having access to computers and the Internet means more access to knowledge, as they depend on it for their academic and workplace activities. For composition theorists and researchers, the idea of the Internet as absolute knowledge is one that poses a serious threat to critical thinking in composition, and also causes disparities among students of different technological backgrounds.

Several researchers have focused on having students critically think and write about the Internet and how it affects their views on knowledge and technological differences (Duffelmeyer, Hudson, Kimme Hea, Samuels). After asking students to write technology narratives, one researcher found that students “buy merchandise according to what our culture tells [them their] needs are” (Duffelmeyer 364). In order to challenge these cultural values, researchers have asked students to write more about the Internet and how it affects their society, linking technology with critical pedagogy. By asking students to read and write about technology, several studies found that students questioned the use of technology as a purely positive force, often realizing the disparities it causes among people, especially other students (Duffelmeyer, Hudson, Kimme Hea, Samuels). Other students, however, still supported the idea that people must learn how to use technology in order to succeed. While studying several first-year composition teachers as they implemented this critical pedagogy about technology in their classrooms, Amy C. Kimme Hea found that students’ conceptions of technology “went unchallenged because many could only see the benefits of technology, the Web, and Internet in their daily lives, and even students sensitive to the technology disparities saw the technologies as an either/or proposition—either you have access, or you do not” (336). While writing about technology changed the viewpoints of some students, for many, using technology to write about technology only reaffirmed their beliefs in the importance of technology (Kimme Hea 336).

Although much research has been conducted on students’ critical thinking and technology use, I question whether asking students to write about technology truly forces them to think critically, or whether students simply write what they think the instructor wants to hear. Is using technology to empower students to think critically about technology only reinforcing the power structures of technology use?

For works cited, see annotated bib.

School to Workplace Writing: A Review of Literature

2008-04-25T04:23:00.000-07:00

Katie Robisch

When interviewing new employees, supervisors often examine candidates who can communicate clearly and effectively, particularly through writing. Companies expect that any employee with a degree has acquired such skills from their university experience. In some cases, college graduates have only their first-year composition class as previous writing training; other students may have completed several courses involving different genres of writing. No matter the amount of previous writing experience, new employees adapt their writing skills upon entering the workplace environment. Much research has examined aspects of this transfer.

Internships and Co-ops
A number of studies examine the effectiveness of actual participation in writing tasks in the workplace as an intern or as part of a co-operational situation. Much of the difficulty of transition occurs in that students learn only when exposed to real workplace tasks with authentic workplace demands and rhetorical situations. These writers must experience the reality of a task that actually influences action in order to experience the actual practitioner’s situation (Dias 220). “The importance and very character of genres in the business world are not judged on aesthetic considerations but on the basis of the social actions that they accomplish” (Beaufort, Learning 103). Similarly, interns learn by facing writing tasks that demand future action, unlike academic writing tasks that focus on reflection or past experience (Ledwell-Brown). Although internships have been effective in teaching students to write in the workplace, simply experience will not teach them all that they need to know. Students will only adapt and transition successfully if they receive a “careful balancing between actual practice and timely instruction” (Dias 221). According to the research, the optimal condition for learning new genres of the workplace is a combination of immersion in the social context and in instruction (Beaufort, Learning 136). Also, some students, despite what they learn in school or through internships or even a precise balance of the two, will not transition successfully unless they truly understand the goals of their workplace community.

Social Context and Work Culture
Much of a person’s successful transition into workplace writing relates to their new social context. In many cases, successful writing comes after several revisions or “document cycles,” and this feedback becomes an integral part of the very workplace community (MacKinnon 46). This feedback and revision also “plays a key role in a very different type of learning: learning about the institution itself” (Adams 178). Professional writers must learn to see these feedback opportunities as a learning experience from which to grow in order to be successful (MacKinnon 51).

Furthermore, new workplace writers must understand the goals and values of their workplace in order to write effectively. Workers who do not have goals aligned with those of their community can demonstrate poor writing and not fully enculturate into their new workplace (Wardle 595). In terms of previous experience, some new workplace writers may have experienced workplace genres in their university studies, but they must understand that even if the genres of their workplace look similar, they arise out of different social settings and result from different rhetorical and social goals (Adams 181).

Also, some writers may know conventions of the new genres and begin to learn through feedback, but much of what they will revise will be to ensure that the document their creating represents the goals and values of the community. In terms of learning these company values, managers and supervisors communicate the norms and expectations of their discourse communities (Adams 169) and pass them down or convey them to younger employees.

Teaching Successful Transition
Given that actual participation in workplace activities and understanding of social values of the workplace seems to best foster professional writing abilities, the classroom must try to emulate these findings. Classes that require revision and collaborative projects will better imitate workplace situations (Reither 197). Also, assignments with real workplace titles such as “report” and “proposal” instead of “narrative” and “argument” will also help to encourage similar workplace situations (Beaufort, Transferring 196). Furthermore, teachers who act as more of “project managers” will help to better imitate workplace superiors (Reither 204).

Research also indicates that university classes can teach some basic strategies to help facilitate the transfer of writing abilities. Teaching different workplace genres and basic ideas of genre knowledge combined with teaching students to be aware of their own writing process will help them when they face new writing tasks in the working world (Beaufort, Transferring 196). Also, because of the importance of social context, students should learn of its importance and some strategies for analyzing it. One suggestion for analyzing social contexts includes teaching students to apply writing theories to workplace activities and to see whether or not they agree with certain practices (Spilka 208). In applying theory in such a matter, they will be learning to analyze social contexts.

Researchers have determined the importance of internships, understanding social context, and even described possible changes and solutions for teachers to make in the classroom. What has been neglected, however, is a more longitudinal study of the transfer of writing skills into the workplace. What happens to student who experiences these new ideas in class, works and writes as an intern, and continues to learn upon entering the workplace? Furthermore, after a few years at this workplace, how has the writing changed? Tracking the writing of a person beginning with their university training to internship or entry-level experience to their first promotion would provide concrete, sequential evidence to current theories and research findings, especially involving the importance of social context.

Of course, finding a volunteer who is willing to be tracked for such an extended period of time, not to mention a business that allows what may be a huge distraction or limiting factor on their employee’s performance, would be difficult. However, a more longitudinal study of transfer of writing ability needs to be performed. Much of current studies, while incredibly insightful, are limited to one organization or a shorter time span. Applying current research into a long-term study would only increase knowledge of how to better prepare students and new employees for the writing roles they will face in the workplace.

See Annotated Bib for Bibliography

Genre & Activity Theory for the Composition Classroom

2008-04-12T19:47:00.000-07:00

Amanda Wright

For this research project, the field of study consists of two important current theories in the discipline of rhetoric and composition, genre theory and activity theory. The purpose in studying these theories is to develop a continuing understanding of both their complexity and their synthesis for future application to the teaching of writing. Other teachers who are interested in connecting their students to the genres of both the academic and professional “real worlds” will be interested in this research. Although I initially gathered many sources on the potential application of these theories in the classroom, it became apparent that a focus on the theory would be necessary as a foundation for future study. However, I did include one textbook which utilizes genre theory to teach writing, a demonstration of the synthesizing power of the theory. I collected scholarly sources only, including articles from scholarly journals as well as books in the field of rhetoric and composition studies. Because the study of writing through these theories is a relatively new subsystem of the discipline, my earliest source dates to 1994.

Bazerman, Charles. “Systems of Genre and the Enactment of Social Intentions.” Genre and the new Rhetoric (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education). Freedman, Aviva and Peter Medway, eds. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994: 79-101. Univ. of Dayton Roesch Library, Dayton OH.
This article, by Charles Bazerman of University of California Santa Barbara, who has published frequently and influentially on the subject over the last twenty years, was written in attempt to synthesize what was known at the time about intertextuality, genre sets, and speech acts (and writing as interpreted through the lens of speech action). Bazerman, who was studying the work of Edison at the time, discussed his ideas through the examples of patents and U.S. patent law. Importantly, he theorized that genres and genre sets extended into genre systems. However, he touched on this only briefly at the end of the article, and it might have been lost in the complexity of his application of John Searle’s and others’ theories of speech acts to writing, except that I had read the Russell articles prior to reading this and knew to look for it. Although it is apparent that Bazerman was thinking through some important aspects of the theory and drawing on his wealth of knowledge from a variety of disciplines, this early article proved difficult and will require more reads to clearly comprehend the transfer and development of his ideas, and to clearly discern their place in the theory. Further, he cites internally only very sparsely (the article was written in APA format), and the copy on his website contains a significant number of typos.

Devitt, Amy, Mary Jo Reiff, and Anis Bawarshi. Scenes of Writing: Strategies for Composing with Genres. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004.
This textbook, created by Anis Bawarshi, Associate Professor at University of Washington, Mary Jo Reiff, Associate Professor at University of Tennessee—Knoxville, and Amy Devitt, Professor, University of Kansas, provides genre theory as a tool to teach writing in a college composition course. It is separated into three parts. Part I relates to “Writing in Scenes [activity systems], [rhetorical] Situations, and Genres” and lays a foundation of rhetoric in writing. Parts II and III deal with writing in academic and other “real-world” settings respectively. Through a multitude of examples, guided questions, and directed (and contextualized) writing assignments, this text repeatedly analyzes and synthesizes each of its topics. The first writing project is an ethnography of a “Scene” of the students’ choice, and all activities include a rubric of questions which address the rhetorical context, appropriateness of genre chosen, etc. This textbook is carefully constructed and the course it presents seems almost ideal. Even a teacher who is not well-versed in genre theory could use this text to moderate success.

Russell, David. “The Kind-ness of Genre: An Activity Theory Analysis of High School Teachers’ Perception of Genre in a Portfolio Assessment Across the Curriculum.” Coe, Richard et al, eds. The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 225-242.
In this chapter, David Russell, Professor at Iowa State University, applied activity theory to his recordings of a multidisciplinary team of high school educators in Kentucky as they assessed student portfolios. This ethnography gives sufficient background on the system of assessment in Kentucky as well as a brief explanation of Russell’s synthesis of genre theory and activity theory. In the chapter, he submits that the teachers must assess the students’ writing through the lenses of three genres: as the state assessment it actually presents, as a genre in the teachers’ own classes, and as rhetorical action in the world beyond high school. He observes that the teachers experience difficulties discerning breadth, or range of genres allowed, and depth, or extent to which those genres in the students writing potentially act in the real world. Finally, the conclusion is that the most valuable aspect of the portfolio genres and the genre of the portfolio assessment itself is in continued connections to other activity systems—in potential futures where students’ writing becomes part of the greater world.

---. “Rethinking Genre in School and Society: An Activity Theory Analysis. Written Communication 14. 1997. 504-554.
In this article, David Russell addresses a gap he perceives between his interpretation of cultural-historical activity theory and the theory of genre systems as proposed by Charles Bazerman in 1994. Here he offers the activity system itself as a unit of analysis to bring together the macro- and micro-levels of human interaction, and discusses at great length and with a number of concrete examples some ways in which his approach accounts for stability and change in individuals and in systems, as well as for the learning of writing itself. From here, he proceeds to the middle ground between the micro-level and the macro-level, an intermediate cell biology classroom. The cell biology classroom becomes the illustration of how his approach extends through numerous systems to the research university and beyond, again accounting for individuals and groups, stability and change. This illustrates quite thoroughly that his synthesis provides a better unit of analysis, accounts for groups between the macro- and the micro, and relates texts to interactions.

---. “Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction.” Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Ed Joseph Petraglia. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1995. 51-77.
In a chapter of a book edited by Joseph Petraglia, Russell begins with a four-part critique first year composition courses posed by Albert Kitzhaber in 1960. Russell’s rendition of the critique is as follows: there is a lack of consensus on content, a lack of intellectual rigor compared to other first year courses, the aims are too ambitious, and there does not seem to be a way to improve upon these problems—therefore the class should be transfigured. Russell utilizes activity theory to analyze and synthesize each aspect of Kitzhaber’s argument, which at times reads circularly—but also proceeds to suggest two specific ways to transfigure the course. Prior to the analysis, the text provides a discussion of activity theory, and then proceeds to apply it. Russell’s suggestions are to extend writing across the disciplines and change the first year composition course into an introduction to rhetoric in language, based in the research and writing of the social disciplines and described as a liberal arts course.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Can Cross-Disciplinary Links Help Us Teach ‘Academic Discourse’ in FYC?” Across The Disciplines 2 (27 July 2004). Univ. of Dayton Roesch Library, Dayton OH. 27 March 2008 http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/wardle2004/index.cf. In this article, ElizabethWardle, Assistant Professor, at University of Dayton continues the discussion of the motives of first year composition, extending on her research for “Mutt Genres.” Here, she focuses on the supposed collaboration between disciplines in composition classes, performing a cultural-historical activity analysis of the linked learning communities in the same Midwestern university. This discussion includes, interestingly, some defense of why she chose to apply activity theory. The text proceeds to defining—citing Engestrom, and then relating the contradictions, constraints, and psychological double binds experienced by the teachers and some students of the courses. To wit: teachers’ own (unofficial) motives conflict with the program’s official ones, the teachers have students write about topics in their disciplines rather than in the genres of their disciplines, and teachers (citing Bourdieu) “mis-recognize” English genres as general ones of writing. She is led to repeat the suggestion that either the goals or the delegation of teaching FYC should be altered to improve the situation.

---. “’Mutt Genres’ and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” College Composition and Communication (Forthcoming).
In this article, Wardle uses activity analysis of the first year composition (FYC) program at a Midwestern university to show that the goals of FYC do not align with the goals of other activity systems within the university. Wardle begins with a look at genre, concluding this section with the statement that all classroom genres, including those of are, citing Petraglia, “pseudotransactional” (5). She begins the account of her research by questioning what general knowledge can be taught in FYC that will transfer to the university, and what pedagogies must be used to facilitate that transfer. The investigation was conducted through interviews, focus groups, and surveys administered to teachers and students of both regular composition courses and courses linked to specific majors—and Wardle uses activity theory to analyze the problems inherent in both approaches. One of these problems is the pseudotransactional or “Mutt” genres of the FYC classroom. Here, the text returns to the initial questions, and Wardle proposes a completely new goal for the FYC course: to teach about writing through use of texts in the discipline, as part of a general education requirement, much as other survey courses introduce students to their disciplines. She concludes with a call for the academy to seriously consider this un/orthodox proposal.

Computers & Technology in Composition

2008-04-12T19:45:00.000-07:00

Liza Winkel

This annotated bibliography examines works that address the use of computers and technology in composition. I have focused this research more specifically on how technology encourages or inhibits students’ critical thinking and their own conception of technology. Any teacher of writing will find these annotations useful if they are considering using computers or any other technology in their classrooms. I included research that both supports and questions the use of technology. I included several sources that include research on web-based discussion in the classroom, which many of the researchers found helped students’ critical thinking abilities. Although almost all research supports the use of technology or accepts it as a necessary part of the university in the 21^st century, some of the following sources conducted research into how technology can cause disparities between students of different technological capabilities, and what implications the superfluous flow of information through technology will have on composition courses.

Anderson, Daniel. “Web-Based Peer Review.” Teaching/Writing in the Late Age of
Print. Ed. Jeffrey Galin, Carol Peterson Haviland, and J. Paul Johnson. Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc., 2003. 185-198.
In this chapter of Teaching/Writing in the Late Age of Print from the series “Research and Teaching in Rhetoric and Composition,” Daniel Anderson, a researcher and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, discusses a web-based peer review exercise conducted in a first-year composition course at his university. Responding to one another in a conversational manner, students addressed more issues of content rather than form. Students offered suggestions about “higher-order writing concerns” rather than “surface-level writing concerns” (185). Based on students’ responses following the exercise, “students saw themselves as participants in a public act of communication that heightened their engagement as writers and reviewers” (185).

Duffelmeyer, Barbara B. “Critical Work in First-Year Composition: Computers, Pedagogy, and
Research.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture. 2.3 (2002): 357-374.
In this scholarly article, Barbara B. Duffelmeyer, assistant professor of composition theory, pedagogy, and research at Iowa State University, discusses her work with her first-year composition students as she challenged them to think critically about technology and why people believe it is important. She argues that “technology and critical composition pedagogy can and should strongly resonate with each other” (361). Her class met in a computer lab, typed reading responses in class, and used e-mail to communicate outside of class. Students wrote technology narratives in the beginning of the semester. Many narratives reflected Duffelmeyer’s argument that people “buy merchandise according to what our culture tells us our needs are” (364). Students responded to readings revealing some negatives to technology and they questioned the goodness of technology use. Although she encourages critical thinking, because she is focused on students questioning the use of technology, she does not address whether the use of computer-based discussion may have actually helped the students critical thinking.

Hudson, Jennifer A. “Writing, Technology and Writing Technologies: Developing Multiple
Literacies in First-Year College Composition Students.” International Journal of
Learning. 13.12 (2007): 93-100.
In this scholarly article, Jennifer A. Hudson, publisher and professor of English at Southern Connecticut University, discusses her web-based first-year composition course at an urban university where students have varying degrees of experience with technology. She argues that literacy now also includes literacy in technology, and students are expected to learn how to read, write, think, and speak in various forms, modes, and media in the academic community. In her FYC course, she uses technology to foster class discussion about “how these communication and information technologies shape our critical thinking, reading, speaking and writing processes and experiences” (96). The students’ writing at the end of the course had significantly improved from peer review activities and critical thinking in web discussion.

Kimme Hea, Amy C. “Rearticulating E-dentities in the Web-based Classroom: One
Technoresearcher’s Exploration of Power and the World Wide Web.” Computers and
Composition. 19 (2002): 331-346.

In this scholarly article, Amy C. Kimme Hea, assistant professor of rhetoric, composition, and teaching at the University of Arizona, discusses her work with three first-year composition instructors at Purdue University as they implemented computer technology into their classrooms. All instructors used the Web and Web-based discussion, but two attempted to base discussion on the “social and cultural conceptions of technology” and how knowledge is created in their Web-based communities (335). The third instructor required students to design Web pages as part of the composition course. All three instructors found students pointing out the need to have technological skills, even pointing out differences in the skills of one another. Students believed people with connection to the Web and higher technological skills have the benefit in academic and work communities. One instructor noticed students trying to use search engines for questions about their own Web-based community. Kimme Hea offers three ways that composition teachers can achieve “more complex edentities in the Web-based classroom”(342).

Latchaw, Joan. “Critical Thinking in the Digital Age.” Teaching/Writing in the Late Age of
Print. Ed. Jeffrey Galin, Carol Peterson Haviland, and J. Paul Johnson. Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc., 2003. 111-122.

In this chapter from Teaching/Writing in the Late Age of Print from the series “Research and Teaching in Rhetoric and Composition,” Joan Latchaw, associate professor at University of Nebraska in rhetoric and composition, describes the use of online group discussion in a first-year composition course at North Dakota State University. In the discussions, students were required to take positions by analyzing and challenging texts. Students developed “mini-arguments” that were strongly supported with evidence and showed high levels of reason. From these smaller arguments, students could develop ideas and arguments for extended essays. Online discussions can be viewed as “an intermediate phase of the writing/thinking process” (111). Students’ interaction “[demonstrated] negotiated meaning” by building arguments off ideas posted by other students (117). Able to compose critically thought out mini-essays that would not be as successful in traditional classrooms.

Palmquist, Mike, et al. Transitions: Teaching Writing in Computer-Supported and
Traditional Classrooms. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1998.

In the chapter “Contrasts: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms,” the authors, professors and researchers at Colorado State University, compare two first-year composition courses, one being a traditional classroom and one a computer classroom. Found that students in computer classroom discussed writing with each other and instructor during the writing process in the classroom, and ended the course with more confidence in their writing abilities. Students in traditional classroom met with instructor outside of classroom more often, but showed no increase in writing confidence. Computer classroom instructor felt students took more responsibility for classroom activities whereas the traditional classroom instructor needed to plan and lecture more. Although instructors and students agreed that new technologies should be used in the classroom, instructors resisted using any unfamiliar technologies even if they believed these technologies would benefit students’ writing.

Reid, Alex. “Portable Composition: iTunes University and Networked Pedagogies.” Computers
and Composition. 25 (2008): 61-78.

In this scholarly article, Alex Reid, an associate professor and researcher at SUNY Cortland University, examines the use of new media at SUNY Cortland through the use of their newly adopted iTunes University program. He argues that the academic discourse community is shifting to a networked community, where various media interact and influence composition. Says that composition in the age of technology is “shaped by a network of interactions that lie beyond the scope of the conventional authorial narrative” (72). As students and professors browse websites, power points, blogs, etc., they constantly encounter new ideas that influence what they choose to write about or use in the classroom. The “professor cannot control the flow of information into the course community” (73). Also argues that as new media emerges and is used in the classroom, questions arise over what is formal and informal to use as a presentation or essay.

Samuels, Robert. Integrating Hypertextual Subjects: Computers, Composition, and Academic
Labor. Cresskill: Hampton Press, Inc., 2006.

In the chapter “Critical Pedagogy, Electronic Conversations, and Student Subjectivity: Postmodern Technologies, Modern Structures, and Traditional Institutions,” Robert Samuels, a lecturer in writing programs at UCLA, examines the use of WebCT discussion in his classroom in the chapter Argues that as many universities employ new technologies in their courses, they usually do not change the authoritative structure of the professor-student classrooms. Believes that technology can be used to successfully implement postmodern education, or the belief that universal knowledge does not exist because of human diversity and culture. Through technology, students can engage in honest discussion about differences and disparities among people. Also gives them more power to question academic discourse. Instead of students being driven by institutional authority, “writing the right way” and “getting the grade,” technology allows students to write in a social environment, thinking critically and displaying more creativity.

Electronic Peer Review

2008-04-12T19:41:00.002-07:00

Kelly Whitney

Peer review is quickly becoming a fundamental practice in composition courses. Instructors rely on students to provide feedback for others with the hopes of improving both the writer and reviewer’s papers. As computers and technology become more prominent in the composition classroom, instructors are able to incorporate technology into fundamental activities such as peer review. More and more instructors are turning to online peer review for several reasons; some teachers find it to be more convenient for the students, some use it to help create a paperless classroom, others prefer to dedicate class time to instruction, and many find the feedback to be of higher quality than in traditional peer review. Regardless of the reason, instructors who do or intend to implement online peer review must be aware of several concerns: Pedagogical approaches to online peer review, how to train students to engage in online peer review, and the benefits of online peer review versus traditional peer review are all concerns that instructors must be aware of, and all of which are investigated in this study. This project draws from scholarly and timely sources that can be found in published journals and books from several disciplines.

Althauser, Robert, and Kim Darnall. “Enhancing Critical Reading and Writing Through
Peer Reviews: An Exploration of Assisted Performance.” Teaching Sociology 49
(2001): 23-35. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 02 March 2008. Althauser and Darnall, two researchers at Indiana University, produced a study to determine the correlation between the quality of peer review and the quality of revisions. The participants in the study were required to revise their papers twice, and in the second revision they were to use only peer comments (no instructor comments were given). The students were given specific criteria for peer review; they had to comment on specific aspects of the text (clarity, coherence, syntax, etc.). The results of this study suggest that critical thinking skills are developed through the revision process as improvement was seen in each revision; higher quality peer reviews yielded higher quality revisions. The researchers assert that revision is the key to improving student writing and that peer review is essential to writing development. This article provides useful insight into the benefits of peer review; however, there is no analysis regarding the role that online peer review played. Thus, this source will not be useful for my project.

DiGiovanni, Elaine, and Girija Nagaswami. “Online peer review: an alternative to face-to-
face?” ELT Journal 55.3 (2001): 71-85. Academic Search Complete. Roesch Lib.,
U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 02 March 2008.
This article evaluates whether instructors should conduct peer review traditionally (face-to-face) or electronically. The researchers trained their students how to perform both face-to-face peer review and online peer review, and all peer review sessions were conducted in class. All students participated in both approaches to peer review, and almost all found peer review to be useful. Most students were indifferent to the approach that was used, possibly because both methods were used in class. Online peer review is generally considered to be beneficial because it is conducted outside the class, on the student’s own time, and in the comfort of her own home, all of which these students were unable to experience. The researchers found that students stayed on task and remained focused longer with online peer review as opposed to face-to-face peer review. The researchers encourage instructors to use the online approach to peer review for several reasons: Online peer review allows students to consider and reflect on their thoughts before writing them, to retain suggestions and information better, and to foster computer literacy. The pedagogical approach to training students for online peer review and the benefits that result from it are relevant to my research.

Lin, Sunny San-Ju, Eric Zhi-Feng Liu, and Shyan-Ming Yuan. “Web Based Peer
Assessment: Attitude and Achievement.” IEEE 44.2 (2001): 13-27.
This study identifies a positive correlation between students’ attitudes toward online peer review, quality of feedback, and writing performance. The researchers used online peer review during several steps of the writing process, including brainstorming, drafting, and revising. The participants of this study engaged in identifiable online peer review with multiple reviewers. In a post-test survey, students overwhelmingly revealed that they preferred online peer review to face-to-face peer review. The reviewers suggest that allowing students to discuss their writing assignments online will foster more positive feelings toward online peer review. Furthermore, they emphasize that instructors must be aware of their students’ attitudes; teachers need to actively care for students’ feelings and attempt to create more positive feelings toward online peer review in order to achieve the benefits that online peer review provides. Students who do not hold positive attitudes towards online peer review will not perform as well, and their writing performances will suffer as a result. This article illustrates the importance for students to maintain positive attitudes, and suggests pedagogical strategies to ensure student interest, both of which are significant for my research.

Lu, Ruiling, and Linda Bol. “A Comparison of Anonymous Versus Identifiable e-Peer
Review on College Student Writing Performance and the Extent of Critical
Feedback.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning 6.2 (2007): 100-115. Education
Research Complete. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 02 March 2008.
Using multiple reviewers in an online peer review format, this study compares the quality of feedback from anonymous reviewers and identifiable reviewers. The participants were split up into two groups: the test group consisted of multiple anonymous reviewers in an online format, and the control group consisted of multiple identifiable reviewers in an online format. The results concluded that the anonymous group provided more critical feedback than the control group; the feedback was more honest and critical because students didn’t have to worry about hurting others’ feelings. The researchers assert that this approach to peer review is most effective because of deindividuation; group members don’t think of others as individuals, and they also feel they can’t be singled out by others in the group. Thus, anonymity is necessary for deindividuation to be successful. Because the students don’t have to worry about judging or offending another student with anonymous peer review, more critical feedback is given. This article will help establish the most effective way to conduct peer review, which is a crucial aspect of my research.

MacDonald, Janet. “Exploiting Online Interactivity to Enhance Assignment Development
And Feedback in Distance Education.” Open Learning 16.2 (2001): 179-189.
Academic Search Complete. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 02 March 2008.
MacDonald identifies two concerns in this article. First, she argues that students must learn how to critically assess their work in order to improve their writing. Thus, she requires her students to conduct online peer review to help develop self-judgment; as students evaluate others’ works, they can examine their own work more critically. Furthermore, online peer review allows students to see alternative approaches to writing, different styles of writing, and gives them more practice learning about writing within their genres. Second, MacDonald identifies students’ inabilities to adjust to reading and writing in new courses. By engaging in online peer review, the students move to a greater involvement in assessment, which forces them to analyze and reflect more critically on their own work. They are then better able to rhetorically analyze their new writing situations and respond accordingly to their new writing courses. The students in this study, however, admitted that they struggled with how to approach online peer review; they felt that they could have gained more from it if they had a better understanding of how to approach online peer review. Thus, MacDonald claims that teachers must train or guide their students through online peer review in order for it to be successful. The information this article provides regarding both the benefits of online peer review as well as the drawback when not executed properly are significant for my research.

Robinson, Jennifer. “Computer-assisted peer review.” Computer-Assisted Assessment in
Higher Education Ed. Sally Brown. London: Kogan, 1999. 95-102.
Robinson acknowledges the numerous institutions that use multiple reviewers and asserts that student writing should also employ multiple reviewers in peer assessment. She identifies the teacher’s role to that of an editor, and the students’ roles to those of reviewers. Robinson conducted a study to determine whether anonymous or identifiable peer review is more effective. The first case was a double-blind study, where both reviewers and writers remained anonymous. The second case identified the writers, but the reviewers remained anonymous. The students overwhelmingly preferred anonymous peer review, claiming that there is no need to know who the writer or reviewers are. Furthermore, reviewers in the second case felt uncomfortable reviewing papers of students whom they knew. In both cases, however, reviewers tended to give numerous grammatical feedback, indicating they were aware of what aspects of the paper they should have been reviewing. Robinson encourages teachers to instruct or train their students on how to perform electronic peer review, but doesn’t offer any suggestions for this training. Robinson continues to explain the benefits of online peer review over face-to-face peer review: Online peer review allows for many more readers, much more feedback, and when students are trained properly, higher quality and better focused feedback. Although most of this article discusses programs and potential software for online peer review, Robinson provides more insight into the benefits of peer review which is pertinent to my research.

Topping, Keith. “Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities.”
Review of Educational Research 68.3 (1998): 249-276. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., Uof Dayton, Dayton, OH. 02 March 2008.
This article is a synthesis of all the studies and research conducted regarding peer review. Topping identifies and explains specific areas of peer review, including peer assessment of professional skills, group work and projects, and oral presentation skills. He dedicates one small section to the research of computer-assisted peer assessment. He finds that this approach to peer review is becoming more popular, but there is still comparatively little data regarding its effectiveness. What research is continuing to support, however, is that writing performance is increasing and more words are produced in online peer review. What’s most interesting about this article are his seventeen parameters for peer review typology. He creates a table that examines the requirements and rhetorical situation of the peer review to ensure students have the best opportunity to benefit from the peer review. Although this article offers superior information regarding the peer review movement to date, it will most likely not be used in my project. This article would better suit an educator who wishes to become aware of the numerous aspects and approaches to peer review instead of concentrating on online peer review.

Xu, Yi. “Re-Examining the Effects and Affects of Electronic Peer Reviews in a First-Year
Composition Class.” Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal 7.2 (2007):
1-21. Education Research Complete. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 02 March 2008.
This study investigates the quality and quantity of comments in traditional and online peer review. Xu examined nine students’ responses on four drafts, which is an incredibly small research sample. Two of the drafts were reviewed online and two were reviewed traditionally. The results indicate that there is no difference between the language styles and comment content between the two modes. Furthermore, the quality and quantity of reviewers’ comments remained the same between the two modes. These results are much different than what other researchers have yielded, and the research variables could be why these outcomes are much more different: The drafts that were reviewed traditionally contained about eight hundred more words than the drafts that were reviewed online, which creates more opportunities for comments. Furthermore, the number of comments decreased with each draft. Xu suspects a loss of interest in peer review is to blame for this; however, their claims could have been validated had they interviewed or surveyed the students regarding their feelings towards the reviews. Xu encourages teachers to use innovative approaches to keep peer review fresh and to maintain student interest. Because this study was poorly executed and its results are questionable, this will not serve as a useful source for my research. There are several other studies—studies that were conducted more thoroughly—that argue online peer review does, indeed, invite more critical comments.

Assessing ESL Writers

2008-04-12T19:41:00.001-07:00

Emily Watkins

The field of study for this research project is the assessment of writing proficiency of ESL students. I am particularly interested in the positive and negative implications of using writing as a form of evaluation for language proficiency. As a future English teacher and possible ESL teacher, I am interested in knowing how to best assess language proficiency through writing. I am also interested in whether written proficiency can best be assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized test, or a student’s written work. Other teachers of ESL concerned with evaluating language proficiency through writing would also be interested in this research, as would researchers interested in the accuracy of different language proficiency tests. Initially, I gathered research on anything having to do with ESL students and their compositions, but this proved too broad. I narrowed the research gathered to scholarly articles and books on various types of language proficiency assessments and effective classroom evaluations; essentially, those articles and books that dealt with how to test and evaluate writing of ESL students. The majority of the research gathered is from the past decade, although some earlier sources are included that offer insight into traditional evaluation methods of the past as a means of comparison.

Alderson, J. Charles. “Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency.” Writing. New York: Continuum, 2005. 154-169. In the introduction to his book, Charles calls into question the ability of existing forms of assessment to evaluate second language proficiency. He points out that indirect tests, assessments that attempt to asses the writing process and other components of “writing ability” such as vocabulary and syntax use, are inadequate. He questions the validity of existing tests and suggests that we need better diagnoses of proficiency and suggest the computerized diagnostic test, DIALANG, as a solution. In his chapter “writing” he discusses the results of assessing writing using DIALANG. His research includes using sample test items from DIALANG, and explores how second language learners who completed the English writing tests performed and the relationship between their performance with certain background variables. Although Charles’ empirical evidence apparently supports his claims, as a reader unfamiliar with DIALANG and the charts he used, understanding the data was difficult. Teachers and researchers interested in computerized assessments of language writing proficiency would be very interested in this chapter and Charles’ research.

Genesee, Fred, and Upshur, John. “Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language Education.” Journals, questionnaires, and interviews. Ed. Jack Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 118-138. In this chapter of their book, Genesee and Upshur provide alternate forms of evaluation for second language learners. The authors do not prescribe one particular form of evaluation, as they claim that one form is not transferable to all situations and specific needs. This chapter provides evaluation through writing, rather than testing. The authors suggest using journals as evaluation purposes, claiming that journals serve as interactive conversations, force a student to take ownership of learning, monitor proficiency and can be used to keep record of student progress. They also claim that journaling provides insight into the student’s linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds and experiences, as well as their attitudes and goals for any language level. This chapter is highly helpful for ESL teachers looking for alternate means of assessment and interested in the benefits of expressive writing. This chapter is highly practical for teachers, as it provides examples and scenarios from the classroom that an ESL teacher is likely to encounter.

Hamp-Lyons, Liz. "Rating Nonnative Writing: the Trouble with Holistic Scoring." TESOL Quarterly 29.4 (1995): 759-762. 2 Apr. 2008 . Hamp-Lyons, an associate professor at the University of Colorado specializing in assessing college and adult writing and in ESL pedagogy, provides valuable insight into assessing the written work of ESL students. Hamp-Lyons argues that holistic assessment, or simply designating a number or letter grade for student writing, is insufficient. In holistic assessment, diagnostic feedback is impossible and thus provides no help to students. Hamp-Lyons also claims essay testing has significant limitations and that the use of multiple trait assessment (MTA) is much more appropriate, particularly as it takes into account the differences of ESL learners, where holistic scoring and essay tests do not. In MTA, a team of graders develop three to six criteria that ESL learners are to be graded on. Teachers looking for a “fair” and adequate form of evaluation for ESL students would take interest in Hamp-Lyon’s research. Although the author’s suggestion of using a MTA is helpful, it would be most beneficial if she provided examples of helpful criteria on a MTA that ESL teachers could include in their grading rubrics. Her article is barely three pages long, and she doesn’t go to great lengths to explain the components of MTA.

Harris, David P. “Testing English as a Second Language.” Testing Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc, 1969. 68-80. Harris outlines the positive and negative aspects of using composition as a form of assessment in ESL students. In his chapter on testing writing, he outlines the (then) critical views of writing tests: supporters argue that writing tests force students to organize their thoughts, help them relate their ideas, and provides motivation for students to improve their writing. For the teacher, supporters also argue that writing assessments are easier and quicker to prepare. Critics of writing as a form of assessment argue that there is little reliability in composition as a form of assessment, as students perform differently on different tasks and on different occasions, scoring is subjective, and that students can cover up weaknesses by avoiding certain grammar they’re unfamiliar with. For the teacher, these types of assessment require more scoring time. Harris suggests that writing tests can be made to be more reliable by giving clear writing tasks and taking multiple writing samples into consideration. In terms of credibility, the book is nearly 40 years old and countless more research has been conducted since then on the positives and negatives of assessing writing of ESL students. Harris also makes certain claims seemingly unsupported by any empirical evidence such as, “We must avoid setting tasks that require a high degree of ingenuity and creativity” (77). This book is useful to teachers of composition and researchers interested in older traditions and views on assessment of writing as a means of comparison, although it still contains helpful pros and cons of using composition as an assessment.

McNamara, Tim. “Second Language Performance Assessment.” Measuring Second Language Performance. Ed. C.N. Candlin. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996. 6-47. In this chapter of his book, McNamara analyzes second language performance assessments. McNamara outlines traditions of this type of assessment and claims empirical evidence supporting the validity of second language performance tests is lacking. This chapter outlines differences between second language performance tests and traditional pencil and paper tests, as language is both a medium of performance and target of assessment. This chapter provides definitions based on prior research and cites various researchers of language assessments and is helpful to ESL teachers and learners who are unfamiliar with testing methods and who are interested in traditional performance assessment and learning about measurement techniques. Although this chapter is helpful as an introduction to performance assessments, it includes detailed information on the validity of occupational testing for second language learners that is irrelevant for teachers and students concerned with classroom language assessments. Although the author claims little prior understanding of theories of measurement is needed, the jargon used in this chapter may be overwhelming to a reader unfamiliar with validity, measurement, etc.

Perkins, Kyle. "On the Use of Composition Scoring Techniques, Objective Measures, and Objective Tests to Evaluate ESL Writing Ability." TESOL Quarterly 17 (1983): 651-671. 2 Apr. 2008 . Perkins, a linguistics professor, explains the importance of accurate evaluation as teachers often hope to use the results to help improve writing. In the article, Perkins outlines the effectiveness of different assessment methods including holistic, analytical, primary trait, and standardized tests. After highlighting strengths and weaknesses of these tests, Perkins claims no type of evaluation is suitable for all needs, and that no test or composition scoring procedure is flawless: all tests can produce unreliable or invalid results. When grading compositions, no matter what the method, Perkins claims it is crucial to both assign a grade on written work and provide comments on student papers. ESL teachers interested in the positive and negative aspects of different kinds of assessment would be particularly interested in this article. Although the author points out many pros and cons of different evaluations, he doesn’t take a definite stance to support any method.

Rollins Hurley, Sandra, and Villamil Tinajero, Josefina. “Literacy Assessment of Second Language Learners.” An Integrated Approach to the Teaching and Assessment of Language Arts. Ed. Paul Smith. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. 13-16. In this chapter of their book, Hurley and Villamil Tinajero address means of assessing the written work of ESL students. They claim that the use of portfolios is beneficial as it provides evidence of student progress and the developing knowledge and craft of writers. The authors also caution that before assessment is given, ESL students should be exposed to various types of “great writing” and given effective instruction (14). They also suggest that students complete rough drafts, and that these drafts should not be graded and that only final versions should be measured. As student writing gets more sophisticated, writing should be assessed holistically using rubrics, and be given detailed feedback. The authors also claim that explaining the writing task is crucial, and it should be discussed with the student so they might understand what they will be graded on. Their research methods include several weeks of observing Mr. Sierra, a first grade bilingual teacher that has taught for 11 years in a partnership school of the University of Texas. This is helpful for ESL teachers who are interested in not only writing as a form of assessment but also how their assessment can be broken down into rubrics and how to best communicate writing task expectations to students. Although the authors claim students should be exposed to “great writing” they never clearly define what they consider great writing examples for ESL students.

Family Literacy

2008-04-12T19:39:00.001-07:00

Valerie Valentino

For this research project family literacy is the field of study. The purpose of studying family literacy is to gain a better understanding of the effects of reading at home with one’s family. Teachers can benefit from this information for the research shows how a child develops literacy. Teachers, therefore, can understand how to gear their classroom according to a child’s previous knowledge. In addition, the sources I read show the importance of developing a child’s literacy before school, with one’s parent. In addition, parents may also benefit from this information, for the sources offer suggestions to better develop a child’s literacy. The sources suggest literacy programs and helpful tips. Furthermore, some of the sources I researched also discuss family literacy being influenced by one’s environment or economic situation. I excluded all sources which did not directly deal with family literacy and only concerned issues of creative reading. I found many chapters in books pertaining to my topic.

Auerbach, Elsa. "Family Literacy Connections in Schools and Communities." Which Way for Family Literacy: Intervention or Empowerment? Ed. Lesley Morrow. New Brunswick: International Reading Association, 1995. 11-35. In the chapter “Which Way for Family Literacy: Intervention or Empowerment?,” Elsa Auerbach, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, relays the importance of school success beginning in the home, parents supporting children’s literacy development by helping them with homework, parents reading to their children and family literacy programs. Auerbach discusses the detrimental effects when life demands take parents away from their child’s literacy development. Furthermore, social context is seen as a recourse that can inform one about a child’s learning. Auerbach goes on to discuss the teacher’s role to connect what happens inside the classroom to what happens outside making literacy a meaningful tool when addressing critical issues in families and communities. In conclusion, this chapter focuses on how the family literacy movement can become a vehicle for promoting change. Parents can read this article, as well as, teachers (who can recommend family literacy programs to parents) and take action when promoting literacy.

Brandt, Deborah, comp. "Literacy in American Lives." Accumulating Literacy: How Four Generations of One American Family Learned to Write. Madison: Cambridge UP, 2001. 73-104. In this chapter Deborah Brandt, a Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, focuses on the stratification created by literacy throughout four generations of the May family. In the chapter “Accumulating Literacy”, the impact of literacy in the May’s material and social environment is studied. Furthermore, Brandt says both of these environments were constructed regionally. For instance, in the 1890s people who migrated toward the city were literate. Brandt discusses literacy growing more democratic between adults and children in the May family. The history of economic competition and change of the earlier May generations become infrastructures for literacy encounters by the later generations. Brandt states literacy becomes the primary source for opportunity and constraint. Furthermore, literacy shapes economic struggles, victories, and looses of the May’s past. As the May family progresses they inherit higher and higher literacy recourses when gaining new technological experiences. Brandt discusses that although the foundation for the May’s success was literature, the value of literacy becomes less important because of technology. In conclusion, Brandt discusses the dilemma the family now faces for they are surrounded by technology, but have an abundance of literature available. Families can become aware of the current changes in modern society and fight to become more knowledgeable through literature.

Gosse, Heather, and Linda Phillips. "Understanding Literacy Development: a Global View." Family Literacy in Canada. Ed. Anne McKeough. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. 113-135. In “Understanding Literacy Development,” Heather Gosse and Linda Phillips, at the University of Alberta, focus on the importance of the family literacy program. According to Gosse and Phillips, literacy is one of the most important goals in child development. Gosse and Phillips go on to explain the success of a child’s literacy is rooted in the family. Having a family literacy program, furthermore, acts as a core environment for the promotion of literacy. A family literacy program breaks down the barriers between home and school. This will, therefore, enable teachers and parents to understand the way each defines, values, and uses literacy as part of cultural practices. Through a family literacy program Gosse and Phillips suggest one can come to terms with the differences between home and school literacy practices. In conclusion, this will create a well-rounded reader. Gosse and Phillips enforce the family as the foundation of literacy. Furthermore, we must understand the nature and challenges faced by modern families, their evolving literacy, language practices, and their influence on children’s literacy and language development. Accepting the role of the family, according to Gosse and Phillips, is necessary for sustaining national literacy levels.

Kropp, Paul. "Raising a Reader." Learning to Read-Throughout Life. New York: Doubleday,
1996. 17-33. In the book Raising a Reader, the chapter “Learning to Read- Throughout Life,” by Paul Kropp, author and teacher, focuses on learning to read with one’s parent as a process. According to Kropp, reading is a process which is fun, helps a child make sense of the world, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up since mom and dad are always doing it. These five aspects affect a child’s learning throughout life. Furthermore, Kropp states the only mistake a parent can make when enforcing a child to read is to expect too much from your child and to turn reading into work. Kropp discuss the five stages of reading which, according to him, begin in infancy (or stage one). Stage two is reading without a parent, stage three is learning, to read at school, stage four is gaining competency, and stage five is a reader using critical judgment. Lastly, Kropp focuses on the importance of family. According to Kropp, the development of readers depends on what happens at home. Reading at home creates a motivation for the future which will ensure a child to grow into an adult who reads. Parents and teachers by reading this article can become more aware of ways to enforce reading.

Leseman, Paul, and Peter Jong. "Literacy and Motivation: Reading Engagement in Individuals and Groups." How Important is Home Literacy for Acquiring Literacy in School? Ed. Ludo Verhoeven and Catherine Snow. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. 71-93. In this chapter, Paul Leseman and Peter Jong, from the University of Amsterdam, discuss the importance of home literacy for school achievement in vocabulary development, and literacy acquisition. Furthermore, through a study, they discovered literacy was strongly related to the family’s sociocultural context. In addition, first off, there were strong links between opportunity, instruction quality, and the social-emotional quality of informal home education, while on the other hand, the parents’ educational history, and job content, literacy practice, and child-rearing beliefs bring to mind the question of whether promoting literacy with children is enough to make a lasting effect. Leseman and Jong came to the conclusion that a narrow focus on home literacy is not the best strategy for obtaining the effects of early education programs. To promote socialization, a child should be well-rounded and have a literacy background from school and home. In conclusion, a low income community (as well as any community) should include parents and children in book reading, therefore, resolving the issue of effects of home socialization practices on literacy acquisition and school success.

Taylor, Denny. "Family Literacy." Family Literacy in a Cultural Context. Portsmouth:
Heinemann, 1998. 79-88. Denny Taylor, an award winning author, in the chapter “Family Literacy in a Cultural Context,” discusses the significance of literacy in a parent-child relationship. Taylor studies families where literacy either makes a family socially strong or weakens their structure. Furthermore, this chapter focuses on literacy creating a strong status and identity. In the situation Taylor describes where the parent is illiterate; the child grows up learning to read in school and becomes divided from one’s parent. Having one’s parent link reading with talking can create a strong reader. To resolve the separation of child and parent, Taylor enforces the importance of literacy in the lives of parents. In conclusion, this chapter suggests the need for a network of community-based literacy programs. These programs, furthermore, would be designed to relate to one’s everyday lifestyle.

Taylor,

Helping Novice Writers in the Workplace

2008-04-12T19:36:00.002-07:00

Yvonne Teems

My research will explore the effectiveness of editing practices in helping novice newspaper reporters improve their writing. Because less research has been done on novice writers in the field of journalism than has been done on transitioning novice writers into the workplace, my research will be two-fold. First, I will review composition research that explores how novice writers transition into the workplace and how their transition can be made easier. Second, I will review journalism and journalism education research that explores editing practices in the journalism classroom and in the journalism field. By focusing much of my research on the deeply researched composition field, and by adding some research from the less researched journalism field, I hope to put together a well-rounded body of research on helping novice newspaper reporters improve their writing.

Adam, Christine. “What Do We Learn From the Readers? Factors in Determining Successful Transitions Between Academic and Workplace Writing.” Transitions: Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings. Eds. Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2000. 167-182. Adam bases her analysis of the differences between the expectations of “readers” in the university and “readers” in the workplace – professors and managers – on a former study published in 1994. She conducted interviews with professors at a Canadian university who were teaching students in a bachelor of commerce program and with managers of a major government financial institution. The differences between these readers’ expectations are as follows: A text’s purpose can change in the university because its end goal is for student learning, not a real audience, as in the workplace setting; a professor is concerned more with student learning, while the manager is concerned with the text quality itself; and a professor’s comments on the text are for future reference, while the manager’s comments are for immediate revision purposes. Adam then outlines how novice writers in the workplace may struggle while adjusting to the new reactions of her reader, or supervisor. For example, the newcomer may not incorporate all revisions required because she still feels ownership over the text and she does not realize the text is owned and a product of the organization to which she belongs. Adam calls for sheltering and coaching novice writers in the workplace while they adapt to the new environment, relevant advice for editors and worth considering in my research. Adam’s article also is relevant to my research because it allows editors to see the differences in expectations the novice writer experiences as she transitions from school to the workplace. The text better prepares an editor for how the novice writer might react to written comments on texts and allows the editor to prepare to change the writer’s ideas of what her reader’s expectations will be.

Arwood, John M. What Editors and Educators Say about News-Editorial Education: Toward a Curriculum that Responds to Change. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Aug. 1993, Kansas City, MO. Arwood surveyed 352 editors and 186 news-editorial professors, asking them what are the most important things journalism students should be taught in the academy before entering the newsroom. Arwood’s research was mostly interested in the changing newsroom: More technology; a struggling newspaper marketplace; and new reporting methods because of more accessible information. Arwood’s findings showed that while editors and educators agreed that young reporters must know how to write and how to think critically, they disagree on most other topics. Some of the findings were as follows: Editors don’t think it necessary for students to learn technology, as that can be more easily taught in the workplace, while educators saw that as an important tool; editors think students need to have more basic, practical skills, while educators think they need to teach theory; editors see a need for students to understand how a newspaper is managed and marketed, while educators did not see this as relevant to the curriculum; some editors believed that basic story structures taught in journalism schools should be emphasized less, while educators see the inverted-pyramid lessons as central to news writing courses. While Arwood’s research did not survey students and did not report on what ways students are prepared or ill-prepared in entering the workforce, the survey gives clues to the answer. This is important to my research because it will allow editors to see that students may be more grounded in theory than in practical applications; students may not know much about the marketing of the newspaper and how it operates as a business; students may be decent writers but not creative writers; students may not be up on the new technologies available in the newsroom. This gives insight into how editors must approach novice writers in their newsrooms.

Beaufort, Anne. “Creating a Fit: Socializing Writers into the Community.” Writing in the Real World: Making the Transition from School to Work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1999. 62-102. In this chapter, Beaufort describes the experiences of three novice writers learning the new discourse communities at the workplace of a Job Resource Center. She talks about various knowledge domains that writers use to create texts and how novice writers apply general knowledge to writing tasks and increasingly apply local knowledge as they learn it. The chapter goes extensively into writing roles within the workplace and how writers don new roles as they progress: Writers go from observer and reader, to proofreader and editor, to co-author, to author and finally to inventor, to name a few. The most significant aspects of the chapter to my research are the descriptions of how the novice writers acquired knowledge and learned to write better in their new workplace. These points could give editors hints at how to approach novice writers in their workplaces. Some of the observances that Beaufort made were the following: The novice writer benefited from good feedback in addition to critique; there is such a thing as too much input on a novice writer’s draft; the novice writer learns best by observing senior writers, other texts in the discourse community, and taking expert writers’ advice; mentors should allow novice writers build up from small writing tasks to those with greater responsibility; and teaching and learning happen informally, as “real work” is getting done (as opposed to a more formal setting, such as the classroom). These all are the ways in which novice writers acquire local knowledge and improve skills in a given organization, and they are the teaching/learning methods editors could consider applying when dealing with newcomers.

Dias, Patrick; Aviva Freedman; Peter Medway and Anthony Pare. “Students and Workers Learning.” Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing in Academic and Workplace Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 185-200. In this chapter, the authors describe a learning continuum that defines the learner on the one end in a school setting – called “guided participation” – and on the other end in the workplace setting – called “legitimate peripheral participation.” The guided participation learning is the model in which the purpose is the student learning, while the legitimate peripheral participation model is one in which students learn by participating, but learning is not a goal of the process. The methods are similar in that they are “learning through doing” models; they are social learning techniques; and they are methods in which the learner does not participate on his own, but with the active involvement of mentors. The differences between the models are as follows: The LPP model requires authentic assignments for the learner to engage, while in the guided model, all assignments are from the teacher and are significant; and the guided model is done with a carefully plotted curriculum, while the LPP model includes spontaneity that could interrupt a learner’s learning. The learner’s ability to recognize opportunities for learning in the workplace can be limited, and the learner’s ability to learn often is contingent upon seeing these opportunities. This chapter is relevant to my research because it defines specifically how learning takes place in the workplace as compared with the university. This will help to show what editors will deal with when encountered with a learner who is used to one style of learning, has particular biases and must adapt to a new style of learning.

Dias, Patrick; Aviva Freedman; Peter Medway and Anthony Pare. “Virtual Realities: Transitions from University to Workplace Writing.” Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing in Academic and Workplace Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 201-221. In this chapter, the authors build on topics discussed in the prior chapter, “Students and Workers Learning,” in the same book annotated above. The authors use examples of students and student-workers on the continuum from school to the workplace to show how student learning environments change: They explore students in school, in internships and in the real working world, as well as other levels in between. The authors conclude that the best learning situations in the work-related experiences occur when teachers/mentors provide some instruction but allow students to work on their own, and then provide feedback. One of the most significant points the authors wrote about at length was the importance of the student-workers’ level of involvement in the new community: In order for the student-worker to learn the new discourse community, he must feel a part of the team. This chapter is less interesting to my research than the prior chapter because it more or less explains different levels at which students learn on their way from the university into the workplace. It does give some points – such as the need for community involvement – for newcomers to the workplace that are important to my research. Overall, the prior chapter is more relevant.

Hickey, Neil. “Rating the Recruits.” Columbia Journalism Review 37.6 (March/April 1999): 37- 39. Editors at the Columbia Journalism Review and workers at the nonprofit Public Agenda polled 125 news directors and editors about the current crop of novice reporters entering the field. Generally, editors think novices: are a worse or about the same quality than they were a decade ago; have less knowledge of public affairs; have less writing talent; are incapable of identifying a news story; and are less motivated than those who came before. Newcomers also feel entitled and are more focused on salary than on serving their communities. On the other hand, the best newcomers are better now than the best newcomers of a decade ago, editors reported. While young journalists have better technical and professional skills than those who came before, their knowledge, motivation and talent has declined. This short report on the poll of editors across the country is relevant to my research because it reveals how editors perceive newcomers, and those opinions may impact how editors deal with newcomers as they adapt to their new workplaces. Editors say they would like to see novices trained at small newspapers (which speaks to the need for basic skills); have better knowledge of basic history and economics concepts; and be better educated on current events (the latter two speak to the need for reporters to read more – a call that editors make explicitly throughout the report).

Katz, Susan. “An Opportunity for Socialization.” The Dynamics of Writing Review: Opportunities for Growth and Change in the Workplace. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing, 1998. 55-71. In the fourth chapter of her book, Katz discusses how the writing review in the workplace – the face-to-face meeting a novice writer has with a supervisor about a document – can allow the novice to socialize into her new environment. Not only does the writing review allow time for the supervisor to talk about necessary revisions to a text, but it also allows the novice insight into the organization culture, insight that will help her with her work and her writing at work. By studying several relationships between novices and supervisors across various organizations, Katz concludes that, in the writing review, the novice can: Learn about her role in the workplace; ask questions that will further her understanding of workplace culture; challenge workplace norms; and learn about politics, relationships and appropriate behaviors. Katz’s work answers the question of how writing reviews impact a novice’s socialization and ability to learn to write in the workplace, which deals directly with my research. Katz notes that the ability for a newcomer to adapt to the workplace impacts her ability to perform well there.

MacKinnon, Jamie. “Becoming a Rhetor: Developing Writing Ability in a Mature, Writing- Intensive Organization.” Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 41-55. To tackle the question of how educated adults learn to write in the workplace, MacKinnon studies ten novices to the workplace of the Bank of Canada. She interviewed writers and their managers when they first started and then over a year later when they’ve had time to progress in their writing. MacKinnon found that: Writers improved significantly; writers learned that using feedback benefited them, and they began to value that; they became more confident; and they recognized their abilities to improve as writers. Much of the study is significant to my research: MacKinnon found that novice writers improved by being challenged as novices and receiving and implementing feedback. Writers also adapted better if they challenged managers, if they had better interpersonal skills, and if they better understood their audience and their writing as rhetorical. MacKinnon also discussed how improved writing and learning about one’s job and workplace culture are intertwined: The more workers understood the workplace culture, the better they were able to write. This means that writing trainers (and in my case, editors) must keep in mind that a social knowledge of workplace culture and audience are integral to the writer’s ability to improve. These are all concepts that editors must keep in mind as they try to help novice writers adapt to their new environments.

Pitts, Beverly. “Model Provides Description of News Writing Process.” Journalism Educator 44.1 (Spring 1989): 12-19, 59. Pitts talks about the successful reporter’s writing process and how it is different from or similar to traditional composition processes as described by Flower and Hayes. She does this by researching professional journalists’ writing processes over the course of a six-year period. Some of the biggest differences in Pitts’s writing model for reporters and the Flower and Hayes model for composition writers are as follows: Reporters spend more time developing the lead, which directs them where to go with the rest of the text; reporters set short-term goals and mostly ignore overarching goals; reporters re-read the completed text a higher number of times and with a better awareness of audience. Pitts also talks about how the reporter’s writing process – what novices will need to know how to do – doesn’t match up with current journalism school curriculum. Journalism pedagogy ignores that the lead for the writer helps direct the rest of the story; instead, journalism schools teach that the lead must be written with audience in mind at all times. This is relevant to my research because it reveals to editors the process their novices are adapting to and how their backgrounds in composition and journalism classrooms prepare them, or leave them ill-equipped, for their new writing roles. This article shows where the novice journalism writer stands upon entering the workforce and what writing processes the writer must adapt to in her first year – all information that could help the editor make the writer’s transition easier.

Wiist, W. Michael. “Seeking a Coaching Style of Teaching News Writing.” Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 51.4 (Winter 1997): 68-74. Wiist advocates using a coaching style in the journalism classroom as opposed to the traditional teaching style of writing comments on papers and handing them back to students without opportunities for revision. Wiist makes his argument by talking about the research and commentary of others, including Donald Murray and Poynter Institute researchers Roy Peter Clark and Don Fry, as well as his experiences as a journalism teacher and a journalism graduate student. A coaching style of teaching is simply conferences between teacher and student in which the teacher can prompt the student to talk about his or her writing, its good points and its downfalls. It allows the student to better identify problems in their writing and improve upon their weaknesses in the next assignment. The article applies to my research in that it draws the distinction between the real-world newsroom and its growing trend of the coaching style of editing and the journalism classroom and its traditional style of teaching news writing. It shows that students entering as novices into the journalism field may be unfamiliar with the coaching style and it advocates a coaching style as an effective method for improving novice writer’s writing.

Transitions for School to Workplace Writing

2008-04-12T19:36:00.001-07:00

Carly Schott

The topic of my research project is the writing transition of students from the university to a new workplace or professional setting. Because the focus is on this transition, both managers within various fields of work as well as writing teachers would benefit from the research I found. Managers can use this information to understand how they can help new employees succeed in their new rhetorical situations, and teachers can use it to understand how and if they can successfully prepare their students to make this transition as easy as possible. I began the research process by gathering any information that seemed to relate to my topic. I soon found that a few scholars in the field have written extensively and recently about my specific topic, and so was able to exclude any article or book that did not explicitly address my focus. I also found that the few scholars who did the most thorough research wrote together or referenced some of the same studies. As such, I excluded the information that became redundant, and tried to pick the sources that represented the field of study as a whole. This is why I did not use research that focused solely on writing in specific fields, like social work, because the information complicated my overarching goal of understanding the general student transition. Finally, everything I found was written in the past 10 years, so that my research is the most up-to-date and applicable to current trends in the workforce and university settings.

Dias, Patrick. "Writing Classrooms as Activity Systems." Transitions: Writing in
Academic and Workplace Settings. Ed. Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill: Hampton P, Inc., 2000. 11-29.
In this chapter, Dias investigates the practicality of writing courses at the university level, and how effective these courses are in preparing a student to enter the workforce. His work is very reliable, because he is often quoted by other researches and has done a lot of work on the subject. He suggests a new definition of writing courses in the university, one that reflects the social perspective of the writing process. To demonstrate that current writing courses are ineffective, he draws on activity theory, which focuses on the three levels of activities, actions, and operations and how they apply to writing courses. This perspective emphasizes contradictions inherent in these courses, and that the goals of students in class are very different than what they would be in the workplace. As such, Dias offers an outline of a way to make university writing courses more efficient. He suggests that students themselves define course goals in small groups, and this will help them to be more aware of various discourse communities and the ways their writing should be shaped by these communities. This chapter helped my research by establishing the current flaws in writing courses that are not conducive to transitioning into workplace writing situations.

Freedman, Aviva, and Christine Adam. “Bridging the Gap: University-Based Writing that is
More than Simulation.” Transitions: Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings. Ed.
Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill: Hampton P, Inc., 2000. 129-144.
This chapter answered the questions I had after reading a different chapter by Freedman and Adam (“Write Where You Are”). It provides an answer to the question of whether or not it is possible to prepare students for workplace writing at the university. Freedman and Adam outline a practicum course in a business school where the students work for various clients who need to have their workplace computerized in some way. These are real-life problems because many of the clients used the students’ suggestions, and the students had to produce several written documents throughout the semester.

This chapter was useful to my research because it illustrates that this practicum course is more effective than a case-study course in terms of learning to write for the workplace. It demonstrates that in order to bridge the gap between university and workplace writing, a course must have several characteristics that are aligned with the workplace. Freedman and Adam focused on audience, social motive, the reader’s primary concern, the goals of the reader, the reader’s comments, and closure as the factors determining whether a course is able to effectively simulate the workplace. The study reveals that the practicum course aligned most closely with workplace standards, rather than university standards, because the purpose of the writing was a response to a real exigence.

Freedman, Aviva, and Christine Adam. “Write Where You Are: Situating Learning to
Write in University and Workplace Settings.” Transitions: Writing in
Academic and Workplace Settings. Ed. Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill:
Hampton P, Inc., 2000. 31-60.
This chapter outlines the difference in how a person learns to write in a university versus a workplace setting through two studies of situated learning cases. Freedman and Adam studied an upper-level undergraduate financial analysis class whose goal was to simulate a workplace setting, and also observed graduate students in full-time internships. Their findings suggest that in each situation the processes of learning are similar, but that they the goal of the financial analysis class is learning while the goal of the activities in the internship are more material outcomes.
A large portion of the chapter is dedicated to exploring several differences between these two settings, including the respective goals of writing, guide-learner roles, evaluation procedures, and the learning site. A main idea they present is “when students leave the university to enter the workplace, they not only need to learn new genres of discourse, they need to learn new ways to learn such genres” (53). This chapter helped me begin to understand why transitioning to workplace writing can be a challenge for students, but I was not left with a clear picture of how this problem could be addressed. I did find it helpful that they addressed internships, which is a rhetorical situation that I had not read about until now.

Ledwell-Brown, Jane. “Organizational Cultures as Contexts for Learning to Write.” Transitions:
Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings. Ed. Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill: Hampton P, Inc., 2000. 31-60.

In this chapter, Ledwell-Brown presents results and conclusions of a study performed on a large organization that was conducted to understand their rhetorical practices and how a newcomer can learn these practices. She claims that the values and attitudes of an organization have a significant influence on the writing produced, and presents the results of interviews with 22 employees that point to the organization’s values and beliefs. She maintains that writing expectations are not usually stated outright, but are implied through manager responses to written documents and are also a reflection of the organization’s overall values. Ledwell-Brown also explores different values within divisions, referred to as subcultures of the organization, which also have different writing expectations. There are several references to discourse communities, and her discussions point to the idea that students entering the workplace must learn the conventions of their new discourse communities the same way they did in school.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces.”
Enculturation. 5.2 (2005). Online. Available: http://enculturation.gmu.edu/5_2/wardle.html.
This article made my research more in-depth because its focus was not on problems in writing classes, but on the actual process of enculturation into a new workplace. The main argument is that learning to write in new situations is more than a matter of texts and cognitive abilities. Wardle claims that understanding identity and authority issues are imperative to understanding how writers learn to write when entering the workplace. She explains how identity and authority are negotiated in the workplace, and that failure to write in effective ways within a workplace community may be caused by identity issues rather than ability. These concepts are demonstrated in a case study of a computer support specialist struggling with his identity in a new workplace. Wardle explains that he was not well-received in his position due to a lack of understanding of his identity within the workplace, illustrating the concept of “modes of belonging” also introduced in the article. This article introduced some new ideas about identity, authority, and experience to my research, helping me to understand the complexities of writing transitions.

Transitions for School to Workplace Writing

2008-04-12T19:34:00.000-07:00

Katie Robisch

This project examines the transition of writers from academic settings to the workplace. The purpose of the project is to determine how writers learn in the workplace, what skills transfer, and what teachers can do to help better prepare writers for the professional world. This project offers a beneficial starting place for professors teaching writing skills at many college levels. It also can help many students understand the types of writing tasks they may need to perform after graduation. Finally, it allows any curious composition theorist an opportunity to see theories in the specific setting of the workplace. In researching this topic, I considered sources from academic anthologies and textbooks. I examined social perspectives on the culture of the workplace and also genre theory as it operates in the workplace. I tried to find studies that examined many different types of writing in many different organizations, from non-profit press releases to bank reports to technical support emails in a university.

Adam, Christine. "What Do We Learn From the Readers? Factors in Determining Successful Transitions Between Academic and Workplace Writing." Transitions: Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings. Ed. Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton P, Inc, 2000. 167-182. Adam recorded reactions from “oldtimers” in both academic and professional settings in response to writings from students and new employees. She chose “oldtimers” because she believed them to demonstrate the culture and values of the organizations to which they belonged. She found that academic writing differs because of time restraints, revising possibilities, and purposes for reading, among other reasons. Basically, while professors evaluate papers based on whether or not the student has demonstrated knowledge, professionals evaluate pieces based on whether or not it speaks clearly to a primary reader. Also, revision comments on academic papers often reflect the past (i.e., “you misunderstood” or “you should have included”), while comments on business pieces recommend changes so that the future audience will understand. In terms of recommendations, she believes teachers should emphasize a fuller revision process. She also believes co-ops and internships to help in developing professional writing skills because “the nature of written discourse in the two settings [academia and the workplace] appears similar, written genres arise out of very different social settings and are the result of very different social and rhetorical goals and activities” (181). Her findings back up her suggestions, but the chapter itself seems very repetitive about revision.

Beaufort, Anne. "Learning New Genres: the Convergence of Knowledge and Action."Writing in the Real World: Making the Transition From School to Work. New York: Teachers College P, 1999. 103-137. This entire book by Beaufort studies four different writers acquiring new skills at a Job Resource Center, but this particular chapter deals with three of the studied employees learning the new genres of public relations writing and grant proposal writing. Providing a brief overview of genre theory, Beaufort explains that the “norms of discourse community are embedded in its genres” and that “the importance and very character of genres in the business world are judged not on aesthetic considerations but on the basis of the social actions that they accomplish” (103). After studying the three writers, Beaufort decided that Freedman’s theory that genre is best learned through participation, not through the teaching of its conventions, did not hold true. Rather, “Immersion in the discourse community certainly motivated and aided learning of the genre, but immersion did not automatically produce expert grant or PR writers” (136). Ursula, who was learning the press release genre, struggled because she did not understand the conventions of the journalism discourse community. She also struggled with request letters because she felt unsure of the social action they were required to produce. After help from an experienced publicist and many attempts, she refined her skills, but her struggles with the genre show the importance not only of participating in the community but also of understanding its goals in values in order to create effective prose. Selma and Pam both struggled to learn to write grant proposals for the same organization. Both had some experience with city grant proposals, but only after talking with several people and developing their own methods (such as typing out requirements and then dividing them into separate folders) and talking to the people who actually create Requests for Proposals did they learn to develop effective proposals. In general, all three workers illustrate that even though they were immersed in the discourse community, they still had to learn conventions and truly understand the goals of the community (and also practice and receive help from superiors) before mastering their workplace’s new genres. Beaufort concludes, “The data here suggests, rather, that a combination of coaching and immersion in the social context is the optimal condition for learning a new genre” (136). Although the chapter seems to focus more on genre theory than typical workplace practices, it establishes clearly how adults may learn new genres in the workplace. Also, Beaufort does a good job of adequately explaining genre theory and the conventions of the new genres in a way that relates to her findings. She may have strengthened her chapter by relating concepts to uptake in genre; however, this addition may only benefit composition theory students and not a broad audience.

Beaufort, Anne. "Transferring Writing Knowledge to the Workplace, are We on Track?"Expanding Literacies: English Teaching and the New Workplace. Ed. Mary Sue Garay and Stephen A. Bernhardt. 1 Apr. 2001 . Beaufort believes that if composition classes want to help students succeed outside of scholarly writing contexts, they need to understand the many variables in differing contexts of workplace communication and they need to examine the transfer of skills. Classes can accomplish this task by teaching as many general strategies as possible and also teaching students to have meta-awareness of their own writing processes. To give them more general knowledge, professors should teach students about varied forms and genres, and she even suggests throwing out “school names” like narration and argument paper in favor of real-world documents such as proposals and reports. Also, classes should emphasize the social context and take “a look beyond the immediate writing situation to the broader back drop of institutional and social norms and values that both define writing practices and in turn are defined b them” (Piazza qtd. 185). Beaufort illustrates her ideas by studying Ursula, who did not receive the suggested type of writing instruction, as a counterexample. Ursula was an English major who became and an Administrative Assistant to the Executive Director of an organization called Job Resource Center. Ursula, who relied on the same strategy for most of her college papers, had to learn new forms such as press releases for her new job. Her struggle to learn these new forms came partly because of physical distractions in the office, but Beaufort believes also because she was not aware of any changes in her process. Ursula did rely on previous documents, the company archives, and advice from her boss and peers when writing at work; and all of these strategies illustrate the different strategies used in workplace contexts. Although Ursula was aware of changes in audience and writing goals, she was not aware of transferable skills from other writing contexts. Beaufort asserts, “What she lacked was a heightened awareness of the full spectrum of factors influencing writing in the academic setting. Even that “local” knowledge, coupled with metacognition about what she knew, would have served to aid her transition into a professional writing situation (196)”. Had Ursula been exposed to a curriculum that emphasized social context of writing, conscious attention to the writing process, and the variety of genres, she would have learned more quickly. Although the Ursula as a contradiction example was a bit confusing, Beaufort clearly illustrates a current problem in transferring skills to the workplace and provides a solution.

Beaufort, Anne. "Writing in the Professions." Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. Ed. Charles Bazerman. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. 221-235. This piece by Beaufort summarizes and reviews the literature on writing in the professions. Beaufort traces the composition process of writers back to early researchers like Flower and Hayes, but she also stresses that genre and situational variables affect the process of professional writers. She also notes researchers who studied intertextuality, collaborative writing, and even efficiency of writers in the workplace. In a separate section, Beaufort describes research on the ways that organizational culture affects writing and that few studies have examined gender differences in business writing practices. Also, the chapter examines the role technology has played in workplace writing, noting especially that it allows writers to revise more often, although not as much for content. Beaufort notes studies that found social affects that negatively affected writers, such as Pare’s study of social workers and juvenile delinquents. To show the other side of the debate, she also explains that writing practices can positively affect on people in business. Again, she stresses that texts evolve in response to social contexts, and she also describes more discipline specific studies, such as those done with biology and sociology. Describing later studies, she notes how research has shifted to include socialization processes for writers and school to work transitions. She briefly describes theories that related to and have added to understanding of professional writing and then mentions further areas that need to be examined, such as transfer of learning issues. Beaufort summarizes, “in all, studies of writing in the social contexts of business and the professions has yielded a rich basis for understanding (and theorizing) the social features of language, genres, and acts of composing” (231). While the article is brief, certainly does not cover studies in depth, and does not make any strong claims or arguments, it still provides a clear, recent synthesis of workplace writing studies. She provides an excellent starting place for beginning researchers trying to isolate a topic within professional writing studies. Also, she cleverly ends the article by demonstrating its relevance saying “not only those in literacy studies and professional and technical communications fields, but also those in organizational development and economic development, would do well to heed this field of research as it impacts their endeavors” (231).

Dias, Patrick, Aviva Freedman, Peter Medway, and Anthony Pare. "Virtual Realities:TransitionsFrom University to Workplace Writing." Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing in Academic and Workplace Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 201-221. This study examines the rhetorical complexity of workplace contexts. This study focuses on four different groups of writers including a financial analysis class, a unique systems analysis class, interns, and entry-level employees. The financial analysis class demonstrated “guided participation” because it asked students to read documents and infer aspects. The systems analysis class paired groups with an actual company for an actual project, although their teacher often stepped in to oversee the project. This class demonstrates almost the exact midpoint in the transition between school writing and professional writing. The interns illustrated “attenuated authentic participation” because they worked not for a class but with a supervisor. The entry-level group illustrated because ‘“an interactive process in which the apprentice engages by simultaneously performing several roles…each implying a different interactive involvement”’ (218). The researchers found that “it is this careful balancing between actual practice and timely instruction that we feel characterizes successful transitions into workplace writing” (221) Because the workplace offers spontaneous learning opportunities, students need actual exposure to workplace activities. When at the workplace, students learn through participation, more hands-on approach. They must experience the reality of a task that actually influences action in order to experience the actual practitioner’s rhetorical situation (220). They “learned something from their experience, but the learning was secondary to, or a by-product of, the instrumental purpose of their writing” (221). The analysis was very thorough, but the difference between interns and entry-level groups was hard to distinguish upon first reading. Also, this study groups all students together and does not consider that participants in any of the four groups may learn differently or have different motivations in each setting.

Ledwell-Brown, Jane. "Organizational Cultures as Contexts for Learning to Write." Transitions:Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings. Ed. Patrick Dias and Anthony Pare. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton P, Inc, 2000.199-221. Ledwell-Brown studied workplace culture and how it affects writing by examining manager’s responses and expectations of writing to see how they reflected the goals and values of the company. She focused her study on a pharmaceutical company that heavily emphasized writing and tradition. The company community believes the managers’ efforts and traditional hierarchical structure account for the company’s success and also that everyone in the company shares the goal of succeeding in the market. Also, all decisions must be in writing and approved by several people, so managers pay careful attention to details of writing. Ledwell-Brown did find that different departments of the company considered collaboration differently, such as the marketing division who believed in teamwork and the management information systems division who believed in individual effort and hierarchy. Most importantly, she discovered that writers need to know much about their organization and its values to be good writing, and that managers, who comment and supervise company writing can convey this culture to employees who do not acquire it tacitly. Ironically, managers often do not see themselves as teachers or assisting writers. In terms of the new writers, Ledwell-Brown says their university training and the transition from the university culture into the work culter one may inhibit them from learning to write in these new contexts. Writers must adjust to the new demands that require action, unlike school demands. They also need to learn to accept criticism from supervisors as attempts to ensure the company’s standards. Although the article focuses only on one, very formal company, it effectively shows how writers must understand the corporate culture in which they work in order to produce effective writing.

MacKinnon, Jamie. "Becoming a Rhetor: Developing Writing Ability in a Mature, Writing-Intensive Organization." Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1993. 41-55. MacKinnon, an in-house business-writing consultant, studied recently graduated analysts and economists at a bank to examine the development of their writing ability. These employees had not written much outside of school nor had they experienced the genres they had to write for work. After interviewing the employees after the final draft of their first major assignment and again after a major assignment many months later, she interviewed their managers. Overall, he found that these writers learned from the new demands placed upon them and also through the many types of feedback, such as document cycling. 80% felt they had “developed significantly as writers” (48) and that although few thought they would develop as writers, by the second interview many thought they would develop even more in the next few years. Their managers agreed with their perceptions on improvement. Also, managers noted that successful writers in their company were not “shy” or “passive” (51) when dealing with feedback. They also noted that successfully developing writers at the bank see writing as “learning yet to be done and improvement yet to be made” and because of that will make “progress and he’ll continue to make progress. It’s the fellow who comes in saying, ‘Hey, look. I did very well in English in university and I write poetry. You can’t teach me: What are you, some bureaucrat?’ Those guys don’t do so well.” MacKinnon’s study offers a very in-depth look at professional writing development, and his inclusion of the manager’s comments greatly adds credibility to his argument.

Reither, James A. "Bridging the Gap: Scenic Motives for Collaborative Writing in Workplaceand School." Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1993. 195-206. Reither, who teaches literature and rhetoric at St. Thomas University in

Canada

, asserts that writing is a social process because so many professionals must write collaboratively. This article explains that teachers need to foster classes to become places where collaborative writing and revision are integral, just as they are in the workplace. He explains that writing is always collaborative because it is knowledge-making. Also, classrooms need to emulate the workplace’s scenic motives such as the research and development and also the need to belong in the working community. He suggests that teachers act more as project managers and have students participate in activities that do not allow them to progress until they have pooled research findings, just as writers do in the business world. In this manner, they will learn about writing as “knowledge making” instead of simply something to do for a grade. His argument is strong in considering scenic motives of the workplace, but he does not give very specific examples of assignments, thus making his ideas more theoretical than practical.

Spilka, Rachel. “Influencing Workplace Practice: A Challenge for Professional WritingSpecialists in Academia.” Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1993. 207-219. Spilka’s article explains how workplace practices and academia work together to shape writing even though the two are “ultimately mutually dependent polarities (217)”. Basically, while academia does have some power to change workplace practices through what it teaches to students, because so much of professional writing skill relies on understanding of social context, academia needs to focus on teaching actual workplace practices. Teachers can do this by teaching students not only to apply theory to writing practices, but also to question such practices and thus question the social context. In this way, they will learn how to understand and analyze social aspects, which in turn will make them more marketable writers. Also, teachers should carefully choose research studies to discuss and try to find common threads. Because these studies differ so greatly, Spilka also calls for more standardization of researching professional writing. While her article caters more to teachers and appropriate pedagogy, she makes an interesting point in saying that academia can influence writing practice. Had she not included the importance of social context in her argument, however, it would have appeared interesting but weak.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces.” Enculturation 5.2, 2005. http://enculturation.gmu.edu/52wardle.html This study focuses on identity in the workplace and how authority can affect writing. Wardle, who teaches composition theory at The University of Dayton, studied a computer support specialist working in a humanities department to see how he learned to write in a new workplace. Wardle interviewed and observed Alan, collected email messages he wrote and those written to him, listened to people interact with Alan, and conducted a survey with members of Alan’s department. She found that Alan considered himself extremely important because he was the only one in his department with such computer abilities. He felt he did not have to prove himself his knowledge or competence. His writing conveyed his sense of superiority to such an extent that faculty members did not always respond to him. He did not use proper grammar or tailor emails to a specific audience, which was “an accepted writing convention in the activity system” (590). Basically, Alan resisted adapting so that he could communicate more clearly in his workplace, and his colleagues did not change their views of accepted writing either. Wardle asserts that “our identities are shaped to some extent by the communities in which we choose to participate (594),” and Alan resisted because he did not want to identify with the humanities department community. The study shows that in order to learn to write in new contexts, people must do more than learn specific skills or improve cognitive abilities (594). Writing in these new contexts involves choosing to be involved in the community and the influence of power relationships. Also, Alan demonstrates a person who did not want to enculturate into a community. Although the study does not focus on documents or many types of professional writing, it clearly illustrates how company culture and attitudes affect people’s communication. Also, it stands out because it shows how much personal feelings affect writing development in new contexts.

Emotions and the Writing Process

2008-04-12T19:32:00.000-07:00

DeAnna Pretty-Jones

This bibliography deals primarily with emotions and the writing process. The purpose of this article is to provide a scope of materials, which deals with emotion, and the importance of research in this much-neglected area, as it pertains to the writing process. This is an information-gathering project. By looking at the various discussions, which have occurred in the last twenty years, I was able to gather a rather eclectic yet cohesive collection of relevant materials. I included scholarly sources from various disciplines, though the sum of my research resides within the field of composition studies. My findings began in the mid to late eighties and concluded as recently as last year.

Brand, G. Alice. “The Why of Cognition: Emotion and the Writing Process.” College Composition and Communication 38.4 (1987): 436-443. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 4 Mar. 2008. . Alice Brand, Director of Writing at Clarion University, shows how a completely realistic psychology of writing has to include both affective as well as cognitive occurrences. In a brief discussion, she suggests that the current research “stops too soon and leaves too much out” when looking at the emotional components of the writing process (437). Brand addresses the factors, which exist between writing and thought: critical thinking, the capacity to identify, categorize and manipulate relationships systematically. She also points to the limitations of current research concerning language use by encouraging researchers to push beyond the literal meaning of words in order to access their “pure meaning.” She writes that the “thinking we do in pure meaning is saturated with sense,” and that though cognitive processes are part of psychological events, they do not constitute the entire space. Brand asserts that what has been left out of writing theories is the why of writers choices as well as the how.

In her examination of emotion and the writing process she highlights the works of various theorists such as Piaget, Erickson and Kohlberg. Brand reminds readers that writing is not an objective act. Touching on the limitations of Flower and Hayes cognitive theory of writing, she challenges researchers to consider what could be lost through modes such as data reduction. The driving force of this research is a great concern for the effects the cognitive model has on students. Brand introduces the potentials of learning the affects of emotions on the writing process and asserts that the study of composition is heading towards looking to the affects of personality and how it influences the function of writers. She concludes that looking to both emotion and cognition in writing is essential to the field. This article is crucial to my research in that it provides the bases of the initial study of emotions in writing.

--“Writing and Feelings: Checking Our Vital Signs.” Rhetoric Review 8.2 (1990): 290-308. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 4 Mar. 2008. . In this article, Brand discusses the role of emotion in the writing process. The aim of her research is to show how intertwined writing and emotion is. This article would be useful for any one concerned with the processes of writers. Brand starts off by pointing to the two main issues that arise where the discussion of emotions are concerned, issues of social implication and definition. She asserts that because of researchers’ misguided treatment of emotion, it has been cast aside. In this work, Brand compiles data, which will inform the affects of emotions in the writing process. She asks a series of general questions, followed by more specific ones, regarding emotion in terms of affects on writing in relation to the writer: which emotions most frequently accompany writing in general, which resist change and which intensify, to name a few.

Brand offers definitions for terms and provides specifics concerning the participants of her study. She studied 191 writers from various groups: professional, student, etc. She goes into great detail about the methods used to conduct her study and gives a general overview of pertinent terms to know or recognize in the study. This is followed by a brief description of emotion classification. Brand also makes clear the similarities and differences between groups of writers and points out various characteristics of skilled and unskilled writers, touching on the satisfaction of writers with their writing. She highlights the finding of the study and then follows up with brief explanations. The research also addresses how studies of emotions in composition have been limited to mainly discussions concerned with anxiety; but even in this aspect Brand challenges that there always exist primarily a negative connotation.

She is greatly concerned with what confuses writers and what lends to their better performance. This discussion on emotions and writing exposes issues of authority and confidence in terms of relationship between the writer and the writing situation as well as between the writer and the instructor. Brand uses tables and writing samples to support her findings as well as sample assignments to illuminate the levels of emotions before and after writing exercises. This aspect of the discussion touches on environment and other situational variables, which may influence the writing process.

She concludes her research with a discussion on the three types of assignments used to examine the emotions of particular groups of writers. Brand asserts that “feeling and thought both supply information” (305). She warns that understanding the emotions and the writing process is complex and that her research is simply a starting point from which a series of hypotheses might be generated and ultimately tested. This article was very organized and will prove useful when I need to analyze various studies concerning emotions.

Brand, G. Alice and Phoebe A. Leckie. “The Emotions of Professional Writers.” The Journal of Psychology 122.5 (1987): 421-439. This study consisted of 24 professional writers. Brand and Leckie were concerned with the emotions of these writers in relationship with their writing and their perceived emotionality as well as writer types in terms of skill and educational status. They felt as though little attention has been given to affect and composing; the attention that it does receive often only focuses on the negative aspects of emotion. This article would be interesting to any one who is concerned with the psychological affects of emotions. The article starts off with a detailed account of the study itself, followed by a definition of affect—for the purposes of this research—the authors also describe the various kinds of writing/writers: professional, self-sponsored and required writing.

There is a section on the method used to conduct the research, which addresses the use of the Brand Emotions Scale for Writers (BESW). The authors explain how the scale assists in assessing emotional state at various points in the writing process. In conjunction with the BESW, Brand and Leckie used Davit’s three-factor typology to gauge both the positive and negative factors of emotion. There is a detailed description of the studies participants in terms of: gender, age, profession, education and what they write. Also, there is a section, which discusses the results of the research and the inconstancies with some aspects of the study; tables and descriptions of the change in the state and trait of emotions follow this.

The article concludes with an analysis of three emotion clusters and more discussion on the findings. Brand and Leckie’s research did find that Anxiety was the most frequently experienced negative trait which may explain why it receives a great deal of attention in terms of research; however, the research also indicates that between the two groups of writers, there were no considerable differences. And that the “closer an event is perceived to relate to the self, the more intense the affective experience” (437). This article has proved useful to my research on emotion because it provides definition and examples of the emotional aspect of the writing experience.

Chandler, Sally. “Fear, Teaching Composition, And Students’ Discursive Choices: Re-Thinking Connections Between Emotions and College Student Writing.” JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 14 Mar. 2008. . From Kean University, Chandler offers a discussion on the affects of emotion on the composing process. She argues that by studying emotion as discourse, researchers not only eradicate the neglect of individual psychology of students but also, it would push for research methods to move beyond current cognitive models. This study utilizes a student/tutor project. By looking at students and their writing in a challenging composition course, Chandler pays careful attention to the high levels of continual anxiety in her subjects.

The writing that is analyzed comes from a writing practicum at Detroit’s, Wayne State University. She was concerned with the “fear” which she was convinced influenced the students writing. Chandler maps out an emotional landscape, illustrating the discursive nature of the composing process. She uses samples of student writing and their response to the tutoring experience in order to discuss focus and process and to look at what happens when students are willing to “re-imagine” their approaches to writing. Ultimately, Chandler found that the writing did reveal developmental properties related to the experience of various emotions. She goes on to consider why it seems hard for student writers to engage academic language when they are fearful or are experiencing anxiety.

In step with the ideas of Nancy Sommers and Laura Saltz, Chandler thinks about the qualities that assist the novice writer’s development in terms of a willingness to be guided through the process and being opened to change. She goes on to address issues of self-perception and the fears associated with mastering college writing that students experience. Chandler then proceeds to ask several questions about student’s tendencies toward cliché or conversation narrative writing. She concludes her research by stating her findings that students will resort to particular—subconscious—strategies when they feel uncertain about their identities as writers, even if that means utilizing incorrect practices; Chandler asserts that this is necessary in order for students to engage in the writing process.

Finally, she offers a brief discussion about choosing assignments and helpful instruction, which may assist students in making the connections between “emotional positioning and writing” thus allowing for smoother transitions between discourses (66). She challenges instructors and composition theorist with questions and ideas about what is still needed in terms of research in the field. This article was very informative but Chandler’s conclusion was a bit elusive.

McLeod, Susan. “Some Thoughts and Feelings: The Affective Domain and the Writing Process.” College Composition and Communication 38.4 (1987): 426-435. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 14 Mar. 2008. . McLeod, associate professor of English at Washington State University, claims that writing is both an emotional and cognitive function; however, research has neglected the affective domain in relation to the writing process. In this article, McLeod offers a few suggestions as to how affect is necessary when thinking about the writing process. She goes on to propose a theory of emotion for which to guide the reader. McLeod provides what researchers should be concerned with as well as defines pertinent terms as they are used within the context of this article.

Her primary concern is for student writers and how their emotions influence their writing. Initially, McLeod offers a brief discussion on various findings by researchers in the field. She challenges the popular notion that emotions stemming from writing are only negative. She then goes on to give suggestion for further study in the field by, encouraging researchers to look to emotions for both their negative as well as positive qualities. McLeod argues that researchers and instructors need to know more about emotional engagement with writing tasks because there is a need to design more challenging tasks to insure that this engagement takes place.

As an important aspect of this study because of its hindering factor, McLeod points out that students come to the table with diminishing beliefs about their own ability to write; therefore instructors need to know more about how to help students access their writing abilities. Ultimately, in terms of belief, research indicates that success is directly linked to how students view both their successes and failures. In the section on theory of affect, McLeod looks to writing anxiety, motivation and beliefs and builds upon this discussion using Mandler’s constructivist views to guide her conversation on the further study of affect and the writing process.

The impossibility to write without some level of emotion ties Mandler’s explanation of interruption with Flowers and Hayes’ range of ideas about thinking, writing and interruption. By linking her personal emotional experience—of writing this article—McLeod found that though agitated, she was also intrigued and this was an enabling experience in terms of her own writing. McLeod goes on to discuss why affect is an issue for both skilled and unskilled writers. She concludes her article with some pedagogical applications; suggesting that by acknowledging the inextricable relationship between affect and writing, students can be better assisted with learning how to make emotion enable instead of restrict their process. This article is very useful for any study of the writing process, affect and pedagogy.

Neidenthal, et al. “Embodying Emotion.” Science 316 (2007): 1002-1005. AAA. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 14 Mar. 2008. . French social psychologists, Niedenthal, researched the process of emotional information. Although this article deals primarily with cognitive concerns I found that it assisted in understanding the ways in which various disciplines look at this particular area of study. Niedenthal’s article does in some ways help to inform a discussion on the importance of studying emotion; it also shows different views of imitation as a form of process—something often discussed when addressing the writing process.

Neidenthal also touches on similar findings discussed in the previous mentioned articles pertaining to the lack of investment cognitive science puts into the study of emotion. She proceeds with a discussion on memory, information-processing models and reenactment; these terms are very familiar in the study of the writing process. This article would be helpful to anyone interested in getting a better understanding of the effects of emotions and how they are viewed in scholarship. In terms of my own research, the article really only provided definition and clarity toward my deeper understanding of emotion as a psychological characteristic.

Shafer, Gregory. “Composition and a Prison Community of Writers.” The English Journal 90.5 (2001): 75-81. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 4 Mar. 2008. . Shafer, composition instructor and author, guides readers through the writing experiences of inmates from a women’s correctional institution. Shafer organized his research using the various stages of writing an essay: writing, revision and drafting, and the final draft. This article would appeal to several groups of researchers concerned with the social, emotional and cognitive processes of writers. I looked at Shafer’s experience with the women as a field approach to learning more about emotion, identity and the social implications these have on the writing process.

Shafer’s article provides the reader with both an emotional as well as practical illustration of the ways in which writing enabled the prisoners to write. He also challenges instructors about remembering the value of writing when developing “intractable” class polices (76). While acknowledging his restrictions in terms of changing the curriculum, Shafer discusses the ways in which he managed to work within the constraints and still provide the prison students with a meaningful, engaging experience. Borrowing from Henry Giroux, Shafer suggests that students should be empowered by a pedagogy, which allows them to utilize language in such a way as to better operate in the world.

In step with Bell Hooks ideas of language as a source of power, Shafer was inspired to meet the needs of the prison writers. He goes on to address the role of emotions in the academic classroom and discusses his approaches to traditional assignments. He concludes this discussion by touching on issues of editing in terms of Standard English use and how engaged students are when writing is pertinent to their lives. This article was very interesting and could be profitable on so many levels in terms of pedagogy as well as social, identity and emotional issues as they pertain to the writing process.

Taylor, Hill. “Black Spaces: Examining the Writing Major at an Urban HBCU.” Composition Studies 35.1 (2007): 100-112. Taylor, an instructor at an HBCU in Washington, D.C., writes about the writing major at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and though her article does not address emotion directly, Taylor explains with great care the role of identity and culture—which is not free from the influence of affect—as pertaining to issues of writing. I use this article to better understand curricular and pedagogical issues as well as for the social implications that may inform affect in writing. Although Taylor deals specifically with the writing major, her discussion correlates with Shafer’s idea of a student-centered classroom, which supports and engages students writing.

Taylor’s article also continues to build upon the pertinent theologies of composition theorists such as Peter Elbow and Derek Owen to name a few. She directly deals with issues of misrepresentation and the lack of diversity in college curriculums. Taylor pulls from Elbow’s ideas about the problems of looking at pedagogy as not only “fixing” issues of language but also ending up “fixing” problems of identity—she goes on to address how this is problematic. Taylor also borrows from Derek Owen’s idea that our identities are “interwoven” with our environments, she asserts that this discussion cannot leave out ideas about the kinds of emotions our environments inspire.

Taylor asserts, “ curriculum design is a political act,” she pushes for the consideration of both identity and culture in that design (108). The article concludes with a statement about the current issues for English departments to consider; such as falling victim to assumptions, which may hinder the progress of better writing. Again this article, though not addressing emotions directly, has added to my over all knowledge of student-centered pedagogy and issues of identity which I now know to be intricately tied to emotions and the writing process.

Literacy and Class Issues

2008-04-12T19:31:00.000-07:00

Arnecia Patterson

The sources listed below acknowledge the interconnectedness of reading, writing and identity-making in the acquisition of language and its use. Teachers and students will find them helpful in gaining awareness of the diversity of responses to language and how society, class and culture affect language learning in communities and in formal settings. Essays, research articles, roundtable discussion transcripts and one
book chapter provide an historic and contemporary awareness of the gender, economic, race and pedagogical factors that bear on literacy. These sources may be helpful to practitioners who want to know more about how literacy is shaped by class and cultural identity, how those experiences present as learning styles and what can be done to address class issues in teaching English. Sources include the work of instructors, researchers and educators with personal experiences to draw on and provide insight to their investigation of literacy and class issues.
Modern Language Studies 32 (2002) published a number of articles in various formats that examined class and race issues from different perspectives, so several articles from that issue are included here. Two research papers from Research in the Teaching of English (33) 1999 give significant, yet different, analysis of class influence on language. Chapter One of the cornerstone text of Critical Consciousness Theory, Paolo Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed is cited as well.

Anolik, Ruth Bienstock. “Appropriating the Golem, Possessing the Dybbuk: Female Retellings of Jewish Tales.” Modern Language Studies 31 (2001): 39-55. Anolik’s essay privileges the revisionist writing practices of Marge Piercy, Cynthia Ozick, Ellen Galford and Judith Katz in their treatment of mythical Jewish folk figures. It provides an in-depth analysis of the work of contemporary, feminist Jewish women who write in the same Jewish tradition that has disempowered and silenced women by denying them access to language. Anolik writes about how Piercy and Ozick, who treat the Golem figure, and Galford and Katz, who treat the Dybbuk figure, have transcended former Jewish classism by giving a female voice to the status of these mythical figures. She references the work of noted, feminist, literary theorists, Helene Cixous, Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar and Virginia Woolf. The essay contends that Jewish folktales are more flexible and amenable to revisionist tactics than the staid, formal, male dominated Jewish texts, the Talmud and Torah.

Cushman, Ellen. “Critical Literacy and Institutional Language.” Research in the Teaching of English 33 (1999): 245-274. The author is a white Cherokee instructor at the University of California at Berkely who conducted three years of ethnographic field work. She studied the critical consciousness of thirteen African-American families, who had to obtain new housing after being evicted in Quayville, an upstate New York, inner city community. With this study Cushman wants to suggest new directions for Critical Theory pedagogues who operate from the assumptions of a “public transcript” (248) of language that does not give an authentic representation of the critical consciousness of language utilized by the disenfranchised when faced with the language conventions of institutions. Her findings contend that the disenfranchised have the ability “to move from naïve consciousness to critical consciousness through normative language conventions” (247). Over three years an ethnographic field study of the thirteen families was conducted through participant observation and the study of literate artifacts exhibiting the rhetorical tactics established by the subjects in their communication with institutions. The study offers suggestions to Critical Theory pedagogues to “recast their theories and practices” that could lead to oppression (249). Cushman experienced a number of evictions with her family as a girl and one eviction during the course of the study.

Friere, Paolo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972. Chapter 1 of Friere’s famous, historic text is a primary source for the study of Critical Theory or Critical Consciousness Theory examined by Cushman in her ethnographic research in Critical Literacy and Institutional Language. Paolo Friere, a Brazilian scholar and educator, was exiled in 1964 for his literary programs for the poor. While at Harvard he wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the theoretical, educational framework of Critical Consciousness Theory, “the pedagogy of the oppressed…an instrument for …critical discovery…” (33). Friere calls his pedagogy “co-intentional education” (56), a political act that transforms oppressive social structures. Friere writes that “A revolutionary leadership must accordingly practice co-intentional education. Teachers and students (leadership and people), co-intent on reality…not only in the task of unveiling that reality…but in the task of re-creating that knowledge.”

Gaffney, Karen. “Excavated from the Inside”: White Trash and Dorothy Allison’s “Cavedweller”.” Modern Language Studies 32 (2002): 43-57. Kimberly Crenshaw’s Theory of Intersectionality is the method of investigation used by Gaffney in her essay on Dorothy Allison’s novel, Cavedweller. Crenshaw, a legal scholar and Critical Race theorist espouses that intersectionality undoes the restrictions and exclusions that hold race and gender to one category at a time; thereby, ignoring the simultaneous positions individuals can hold in multiple categories. Allison, herself, is a self-described “queer white trash” who rewrites and resists the myth of white trash in her re-empowering novels, poetry and essays. Through two of Crenshaw’s theories, representational intersectionality, how multiple categories intersect to represent a cultural image, like white trash, and political intersectionality, Crenshaw’s fundamental theory that people hold multiple, categorical class positions simultaneously, Gaffney analyzes Cavedweller. She focuses on Allison’s themes that antagonistic relationships between the oppressed groups within races are constructed and perpetuated by the powerful classes, in order to maintain their power, and that they blame poor whites as responsible for their own poverty.

Hemphill, Lowry. “Narrative Style, Social Class, and Response to Poetry.” Research in the Teaching of English 33 (1999): 275-304. Think-aloud responses to literary narratives for the purpose of reconstructing narrative text worlds and recounting personal experiences while reading are the methods used by Dr. Hemphill of Wheelock College Language and Literary Department. Her subjects are ten, 15 year old Honors English students in a large, urban high school, divided into two groups: working-class and middle-class. Hemphill’s study compares the stylistic differences in narration styles of each group, contrasts each group’s response to poetry and makes associations between styles. She assesses the oral language, reading and writing skills of the subjects through peer conversation, oral narrative, think-aloud responses and written essays on literature. Her findings conclude that social class is a relevant variable in primary discourse styles, learned in early socialization, and secondary discourse styles, learned in formal schooling. The students’ responses to literature and interpretive skills reflect the influence of community and class narrative conventions and membership in different speech communities.

Maini, Irma, Jeanne Phoenix Laurel, Jane Wood, Yasmin DeGout, Deborah Thompson. “What’s White Got to Do with It?: Teaching Whiteness. Part I.” Modern Language Studies 32 (2002): 103-132. In the transcript of a roundtable presentation by English and Humanities instructors at the Northeast Modern Languages Association Convention 2000 in Pittsburg, PA discussion is about teaching the texts of European and European American writers in an ethnographic context. Professors are active teachers and scholars at New Jersey City University, Niagara University, Baker University, Howard University and Colorado State University. They present a recounting of their experiences and student responses to being assigned texts and writing on literature that investigates ethnic communities, or develops whiteness along lines of racial identity, privilege and power. Panelists discuss the complications in teaching whiteness and audience members continue the discussion in an extensive question and answer session following the panel presentation. Handouts include an annotated list of critical resources and primary texts from Jeanne Phoenix Laurel of Niagara University.

Miller, Richard E. “The Arts of Complicity Pragmatism and the Culture of Schooling.” Cross-Talk In Comp Theory, A Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 655-675. Miller’s essay serves as a comprehensive link between Ellen Cushman’s ethnographic research article, Critical Literacy and Institutional Language, and Chapter One of Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Miller praises Frierian pedagogy as an appealing contribution to the field of composition while questioning its influence. He supports its appeal by pointing out the salient points of Frierian pedagogy such as the differences between the banking method of instruction and the problem-posing method: the establishment of a partnership between teacher and student that does not result in indoctrination by the oppressor. Miller states that Friere’s methods “leeches the power dynamic out of the student-teacher relationship” (659). He references the discussion of “public transcript” and “hidden transcript” in James Scott’s Domination and the Arts of Resistance and applies it to the authenticity of classroom interaction in light of teacher enforced boundaries. Can teachers accept at face value the public transcript of the classroom if students have a hidden transcript on which they record classroom experiences? Miller argues that the boundaries of the classroom do not allow an authentic interaction. Finally, Miller states that he wants a pragmatic pedagogy by which instructors can teach students “how to work within and against discursive constraints simultaneously, thereby helping them to experience the mediated access to “authenticity” that social action allows” (674).

Wilner, Arlene, Avy Trager, Victoria Boynton, Stephen Spencer, Karen J. Hall, Dian Killian. “What’s White got to Do with It?: Teaching Whiteness. Part II. Modern Language Studies 32 (2002): 133-173. In the continuation of Part I of the Northeast Modern Language Association Conference 2000 in Pittsburg, PA panelists represent Rider University, University of New Hampshire, SUNY Cortland, Wilmington College (Ohio), Syracuse University and Case Western Reserve University. Panelists talk about various approaches to teaching whiteness, how to arrange textual study, how to group readings so that discussions can build on previous readings, language use that portrays combative stances in teaching literature and a seminar on Irish Emigrant Discourse from colonial and racial contexts. Panelists continue the discussion with the audience following the presentation. There are seven handouts attached to the transcript: Final Essay Topics, Teaching Objectives, Confrontational Quotes, Student On-line, Informal Quotes, Writing to Awaken, Bibliography of Irish History and Culture as People of Color, The Irish as Black in Colonial Discourse, Irish/Emigrant Literature/Discourse, Irish Emigrant Literature Syllabus.

Transitions for School to Workplace Writing

2008-04-12T19:30:00.000-07:00

Jennifer Osterday

For this research project, the field of study I chose focuses on how students are transitioning from the classroom to the workplace. As I am personally graduating in a month, I am interested in knowing in what helps and does not help students prepare for a new career. By understanding what areas are working or failing in the university, the information can be passed on in hopes of improving the universities’ current writing courses. During the research process, I focused on authors such as Beaufort, Freedman, Adam and Dias as I knew they offered the most information on this topic. All of the sources are from books written by experts in their field. Most of the articles are timely, with the exception of a piece from 1993. However, the article still offers important information on what needs to be changed in the classroom.

Beaufort, Anne. “Bridging the Gap: From Classroom to Boardroom.” Writing in the Real World: Making the Transition from School to Work. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. 171-197. Anne Beaufort has been a coordinator of writing across the curriculum and has a Ph.D. in Education, which is focused in Language, Literacy and Culture. In this chapter, she makes the claim of the different ways students can go about transferring to a workplace after college. After extensive research with four girls, Beaufort uses their examples to make her points. Clearly the education system is not doing enough to help the girls. Beaufort makes the claim that the only thing that will help improve the school system is by teaching the different writing processes, multiple genres, and the idea that reading can be a social context for its communicative norms (180). She does point out that the schools are going in the right direction. The girls in Beaufort’s study made the point in saying that they have learned in school how to interpret texts, formulate ideas and organize their points. Beaufort also says the school system is doing well with including more participatory learning, but there is still much more to be done. This includes making writing assignments more meaningful to the students other than the accomplishment of a letter grade. She also says that learning how to facilitate the transferring of learning as well as cultivating meta-cognitive thinking is important. These three points were applied and shown to be helpful in the workforces that the girls encountered. This article is similar to other ones Beaufort has written, but is useful as it gives concrete examples from the girls she studied.

---. “New Directions for University Writing Instruction.” College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2007. 142-158. In this final chapter of her book, Beaufort helps explain what she believes to be the main problems with university courses. Throughout the book, she examines the writing process of her subject, Tim, as he goes through college. As Beaufort learns that his writing process does not really grow from his freshman to senior year of school, she laments it is because colleges are not increasing the level of difficulty in writing each year. It is clear Beaufort thinks there is something wrong with the way colleges are creating writing assignments. Tim, like most college students, struggled to write anything because of his mindset; everything he wrote was just “doing school” (144). Also, the author makes the claim that students would benefit more with a consistent professor throughout all four years as well as a freshman seminar, and an understanding of genre and rhetoric. Beaufort explains that students need to understand the different genres in relation to social contexts. She also says that students do not know how to transfer knowledge from the classroom to the workforce. Through opportunities and meta-cognition (thinking about thinking), the students would be more prepared. Also, by getting past the grade and having students motivated to write about things that they care about, the writing should improve. These arguments and solutions Beaufort makes about college classrooms will be useful when comparing to other expert opinions.

Freedman, Aviva and Christine Adam. “Bridging the Gap: University based Writing that is More than Simulation” Transitions: Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings Eds. Dias, Patrick and Anthony Pare. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 2000. 129-144. Aviva Freedman, who has done a decent amount of research, and Christine Adam claim the only way to help students transition from the classroom to the workroom is through a practicum. The authors studied a group of specially picked students who were asked to work in groups for a specific company. The professor was more of a guide, than a teacher as she helped the groups write appropriately for the business. Every student automatically received an ‘A’ in the course, so the students focused solely on working for the company instead of trying to work for the professor’s grade. While all the students seemed to learn what they needed to know to successfully transfer into the workplace, it seems unfortunate that this is the only solution the authors could find.

---. “Write Where You Are: Situating Learning to Write in University and Workplace Settings.” Transitions: Writing in Academic and Workplace Settings Eds. Dias, Patrick and Anthony Pare. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 2000. 31-60. Freedman and Adam focuses on studies that explain the best way to help students in the workplace. They had a study on internships as well as a course in a university setting designed to reflect workplace scenarios. The authors’ findings reflect that while there are some similarities, there are also some major differences. They found that both atmospheres focus on “learning through performance” but the learner is never fully participating in the job responsibilities (55). However, in the university setting the students are given very clear goals and assignments that they understand they must learn. In a workplace setting, the authors found that sometimes the interns did not know when to learn. The interns were too accustomed to being told when and how to learn in a classroom setting. The university is also individual centered while the workplace had everyone – newcomers and old-comers – working together on projects. The authors make a claim that while the classroom setting is trying to include “real life” scenarios, there is still much work needed to be done to truly help students transfer to a workplace setting. Not only do the students have to learn new genres in the workplace, but they have to understand how to learn the new genres as well.

Dias, Patrick, Aviva Freedman, Peter Medway, and Anthony Pare. “Virtual Realities: Transitions from University to Workplace Writing.” Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing In Academic And Workplace Contexts. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 201-221. These four authors offer a fresh insight on an alternative from the typical classroom situation or case studies. They make the claim that there is a point between the classroom and the workplace that can help writers. By employing a system which they term, “facilitated performance,” it allows a hybrid of working in a real workplace situation while still having the instructor there for support. The students work with actual problems, giving them global perspectives, experience with group work, the knowledge of how to critique others, as well as learning how to integrate knowledge from previous courses to the work at hand. While doing this, the instructor is still there and the students still get a grade and receive credit. The instructor and students work together as they work for a company. The writers explain that in this instance, the writing the students do is now a reflection on the instructor and the institution, unlike typical writing courses where it’s just a reflection of the student’s competence (209). The writers also advocate internships as being great ways to immerse themselves in work right away. Their final sentence makes the claim that the best way to bridge a successful transition into the workplace requires “actual practice and timely instruction” (221). This is a good idea. However, the classroom example the authors give focuses on social workers. I feel as though other majors would not have it as easy.

Joliffe, David A. “Preparing All Students for the New Workplace Literacy: Avenues for English Instruction in High Schools and Colleges.” Expanding Literacies: English Teaching and the Workplace. Ed. Mary Sue Garay and Stephen A. Bernhardt. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. 285-297. Joliffe, who has earned his Ph.D. and done extensive research in rhetoric and genres, starts by explaining how the workplace has changed over the years. Workers today are not only required to know how to work their place on the line, but also be “flexible, frequently collaborative, and open to change in production” (288). Thus, workers have to be able to be efficient in many areas – including writing. To ensure that workers are prepared for their jobs, Joliffe makes the claim that the English teachers need to teach students how to be independent, readers, writers, critical thinkers and be self-sufficient (291). To achieve this Joliffe has three strategies for English educators: incorporate ill structured problems, implement continuous assessment of quality, and develop collaborative work teams. By incorporating ill structured problems, students learn how to apply writing to real world scenarios. The continuous assessment of quality requires students to stop during the middle of a project and assess how they have been doing. The new literate workplace titles this “total quality management”. This helps students process the amount of control they have over the situation. Finally, collaborative teams would require students to work in groups and switch roles. These roles include Administrator, Producer, Developer and Fine Tuner. By having these roles, every aspect of an assignment is analyzed – from overseeing to examining the final product – and the students teach each other just like a scenario you’d find in the workplace. Each strategy Joliffe has created is focused on “learning by doing” (296) and is what Joliffe believes every English class needs to help people thrive in the workplace.

Reither, James A. “Bridging the Gap: Scenic Motives for Collaborative Writing in Workplace and School.” Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Spilka, Rachel. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 201-206. In a specific part of Reither’s chapter, he comments on how to bridge the gap between workplace and classroom. He starts by arguing that the main problem with classrooms is that the focus is on the grades. Classrooms need to start understanding how to provide students how to collaborate with one another like employees do in the workforce. To achieve this, Reither makes the claim that three major changes need to be done in the workforce. One, the students need to be involved in ongoing learning projects that make the students understand how to organize, plan and consolidate with others. Instead of making the teacher do all the work, the students must understand how to do this for future careers. Next, Reither says the teachers role in the classroom needs to change from the deliverer of knowledge to the research/project manager. Finally, the students must change and understand they are not just there to sit to lectures and read a textbook; the students role involves identifying gaps and pooling findings to make a more complete educational experience. I like that Reither understands that simple writing and revising is needed in the classroom. However, he does not mention how difficult it will be for universities to change from a grade focused classroom to a collaboration focus.

Wardle, Elizabeth. (2005). “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces.” Enculturation 5.2. http://enculturation.gmu.edu/5_2/wardle.html. Wardle makes the point that identity issues can play a big part in how well someone transfers from the university to the workplace. An important part of this article is on how the subject Wardle studied, Alan, was unable to successfully survive in his chosen discourse community because of his stubborn ways. Alan wanted to do things his own way to assure that he was the one in charge; however, others saw him as simply not adopting conventions that were needed to succeed in the workplace. Instead of seeing Alan as an independent individual, others saw him as incapable of engaging with the company. Alan did not follow the rules of the convention by changing his writing behavior. Alan tried to prove himself in the new workplace but instead showed that he was incapable of succeeding. This proves that not only is it difficult to work in a new environment, but in order to succeed it is necessary to follow the ways of the discourse community. Having conflicts with identity and the authority of the business can ultimately cause a person to lose their job. It is unfortunate Alan did not try to conform to the correct writing style, as I would have liked to see whether he could have succeeded had he tried harder to not be so stubborn.

Anxiety and Timed Writing

2008-04-12T19:25:00.000-07:00

Megan Murphy

For this research paper, I chose to study student anxiety in timed writing assessments. The reason for studying this topic is to gain insight in how much anxiety plays a part in the way a student performs on writing assessments when they are timed. This research would benefit students, teachers and writers alike because almost everyone has experienced some aspect of participation in a timed assessment, whether teaching or taking one. Through gathering this research, I found it beneficial to see the different aspects that go into causing student anxiety and why it affects them through taking a timed test. I think that this research would also be useful to any teacher or parent struggling with a child who has anxiety towards tests. For this research, I only used scholarly journals that related to the topic and were dated back to the early 1970’s up until the most recent, in 2002.

Hill, Kennedy T. and Allan Wigfield. “Test Anxiety: A Major Educational Problem and What Can Be Done About It”. The Elementary School Journal. (1984): 105-126. JSTOR.
Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 29 Mar 2008.

In this article, the authors begin with an overview of what anxiety is, who it affects and what can be done about it. The authors also generally focus on anxiety in children and how this relates to specific school settings, along with test taking. The researchers became interested n the topic because they wanted to know what caused this anxiety in children and how they could help them turn this anxiety into something positive. The researchers also focused where this anxiety could have originally stemmed from and they found that it could occur in children as young as preschool age and it emerges more in elementary school. They found that this anxiety can start at such a young age because parents put too much pressure on their children to perform unrealistically for their age and this only carries over to middle school and then eventually to high school. This article also recognizes that as children get older, they not feel pressure to perform well in school from their parents, but they also sense a need for competition against their fellow classmates. Too many of them have unfair evaluations in from on the class, which in turn only makes them feel more nervous to perform well on tests so that they are doing as well, if not better than their other classmates. The information that the authors described about anxiety and how it pertains to the classroom and test taking supports the main point of my research. I also think that the general definitions of anxiety they offer and how it affects students will also help.

Petroskey, Anthony. “Research Roundup: Apprehension, Attitudes and Writing”. The English Journal. (1976): 74-77. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH.
29 Mar 2008.

Anthony Petroskey discusses in this article how apprehension is an anxiety trait and how it plays a part in test taking and also communication in general. Petroskey argues that when this apprehension is present in the classroom, it is harder for students to learn how to write and for the teachers to teach the act of writing. Because of this, he found that when students have this apprehension, and aren’t even taking the writing section of SAT’s but are actually being scored in the verbal section, their perception of success is being lowered. Because of these findings, Petroskey developed a “writing apprehension instrument” that teachers can use in instructional settings that can help both teachers and students have a better guide of who needs help with their writing and who does not. If the teachers used this instrument and then realized who needed more help, the students would feel less anxiety about their writing and would have a better attitude about it. If the students get enough instruction about their writing before taking the standardized tests, they would be able to perform better and feel less stress. This article is important to my research because it identifies students who feel anxiety about their writing and therefore have trouble performing well on both the verbal and written section of the SAT’s. The results of the study also pertain to my main research goal.

Powers, Donald E. and Mary E. Fowles. “Effects of Applying Different Time Limits to a
Proposed GRE Writing Test”. Journal of Educational Measurement. (1996): 433-452.
JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 30 Mar 2008.

In this article, the researchers did a study on three hundred volunteers who were prospective graduate students. In the study, the volunteers had to write two essays, both of which were timed. The first essay they had to write they were only given forty minutes, while in the second they were given sixty minutes. Through this study, the researchers were trying to see if the time had anything to do with the way that the volunteers performed. They discuss the background of tests often given to college students and differentiate between “power tests” and “speed tests”. Through the discussion of these two kinds of tests, the researchers found that although strict time limits may negatively affect a student’s performance, most people feel that standardized tests are only fair if every student had to perform within the same time limitations. The researchers found that although standardized tests seem fair to everyone, they are not a good representation of how well that person writes. Through their findings, the researchers realized that although the examinees had a better test performance when they were give sixty minutes instead of forty, there was “no detectable effect of different time limits on the meaning of essay scores”. This study is important to my research because it exemplifies the correlation between timed writing assessment and the way students perform on them.

Shavelson, Richard and Gail Baxter. “Sampling Variability of Performance Assessments”. Journal of Educational Measurement. (1993): 215-232. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of
Dayton, Dayton, OH. 29 Mar 2008.

In this article, the author describes general performance assessments and the wide range they are used in multiple fields. They begin by recognizing that performance assessments are something that have been used as political instruments for a very long time but have moved into school districts as a measurement of performance and success. The authors discuss how the curriculum could be raised if these assessments were used, and therefore the student’s achievements would be higher. The authors also recognize factors going against these performance assessments. For example, the cost of the tests and how much time it takes out of the school year for the teachers to give them to the students. They also bring up the issue that judging the answers has become a problem of discrimination. Different student disabilities have become a problem in allowing who should take these tests and whom they are appropriate for. Through differentiating between the two, they then have to find a new way to judge the tests depending on the disability. Although some of this article deals with test anxiety and the pressures that go alone with performance assessments, the second half of the article deals with a separate study. I would use the beginning of the article that is useful in understanding how these assessments affect children.

Shepard, Lorrie and Carribeth Bliem. “Parent’s Thinking About Standardized Tests and
Performance Assessments”. Educational Researcher. (1995): 25-32. JSTOR. Roesch
Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 29 Mar 2008.

The two researchers open this article by discussing opinions of standardized tests and assessments. The article then goes on to explain how a group of parents in Colorado are opposing these tests and their reasoning for their opposition. They begin by explaining how their board members decided to change their way of testing and are going “back to the basics” way of testing because of the large amount of negative feedback that they have received by parents in their school district. The parents argue that the standardized tests are not fair because it is hard for their children to be positive about what is going to be present on the test and whether or not their teachers are preparing them correctly for the exams. They also argue that the standardized test board has unrealistic expectations for what students can learn on a year-to-year basis. This just puts added pressure on the school, the teachers, and the students. Through this study, the researchers asked a wide range of parents how they think their children should be assessed in school. Only 13% of the parents felt that standardized testing was important representation for them to understand how well their children are doing in school. While 77% of the parents felt that talking to their child’s teacher is the most helpful and insightful because they get to hear how their child has progressed throughout the year, and not how they did one morning, on one test. This article is very important to my research because it analyzes what actual parents feel is necessary in assessing their children and it also gives an example of an actual school district fighting against the typical standardized tests.

Simmons, John. “Testing on Both Sides: A Comparison”. The English Journal. (1987): 27-29.
JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 30 Mar 2008.

In this article, the author discusses when the statewide testing first came into affect in the United States. The tests first came into affect in the 1970’s and teachers and students alike have been struggling with them ever since. The teachers don’t agree with having to spend time in the classroom teaching the students how to take these tests when they barely have enough time to teach what they already have planned. One state that Simmons focuses on in the state of Florida and how they originally began this testing mechanism and that many other states just followed in their footsteps. The state of Florida originally felt the need to put these tests into motion because of the way their State Department of Education responded to the legislative Accountability Act that was created in 1972. The original setup for the tests was multiple choice and a writing section. But linguists or rhetoricians did not judge the writing section, they were judged by a simple writing team. Simmons goes on to explain how the tests haven’t only made the students more competitive, but they have made all of the school districts competitive against each other, displaying their students scores like a national scoreboard. This article is very beneficial to my research because it explains when and where standardized tests first came into place. It also has a large amount of background details on why this state testing was needed according to the legislative act that was passed.

Trentham, Linda. “The Effect of Distractions on Sixth-Grade Students in a Testing Situation”.
Journal of Educational Measurement. (1975): 13-17. JSTOR. Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 29 Mar 2008.

Throughout this article, the author studies whether or not distractions in the classroom affect the grades students receive on exams. In the study, Trentham exposes a classroom to two different kinds of test taking conditions. In the first group, the students took a test in the most “ideal” environment for test taking, in a very quiet room. Then they were placed into a room with many distractions such as pencils breaking and loud arguing going on in the hallway. In the researcher’s results, it was found that there were no differences in the student’s scores between the two groups. Trentham goes on to give several more examples of different age groups who were placed in these same kinds of settings. She explains that only with elementary children were they much more distracted by the other things that were going on in the room. But in all of the studies done with high school and college students the results were the same; the distractions didn’t affect their scores. Because the distraction level changed somewhere between elementary school and high school, Trentham decided to do another study seventy-two sixth graders who were randomly selected from three different schools in Kentucky. She included eight distractions ranging from kittens being dropped into the room to a radio being played for thirty seconds. She found that it was true that students who were in the room with the distractions performed worse than the subjects in the non-distraction room. Therefore, the change in the level of distraction has to occur later than middle school. These studies are very important to my research because it gives a wide variety of examples of how students are affected by distractions in the room when they are taking exams. These distractions can cause anxiety and therefore could cause them to receive a lower score.

Walen, Sharon B. and Steven R. Williams. “A Matter of Time: Emotional Responses to Timed
Mathematics Tests”. Educational Studies in Mathematics. (2002): 361-378. JSTOR.
Roesch Lib., U of Dayton, Dayton, OH. 29 Mar 2008. .

This study focuses on the emotional responses to three different individuals to timed mathematics tests. The authors examined two adult women who reflect on their experiences “taking skills-tests” and a third grade girl who is currently taking these tests. The authors found that their negative emotional responses didn’t have everything to do with the specific course (mathematics) or to the fact that they were being assessed, but more towards the timed nature of the tests they had to take. The authors also found a direct correlation between the anxiety the students felt about doing well on the assessment and their achievement. The authors also incorporate many other studies don’t by past theorists who have found the same kind of results. These other studies also support the authors main point that timed writing assessment anxiety can occur as early as grade three because the students recognize the competition they have with their peers.

L2 Writers

2008-04-12T19:22:00.000-07:00

Christine Maddox

The classroom is becoming a much more diverse place today than it was in the past. Students representing various cultures and speaking numerous languages are entering the American writing classroom intent on learning to successfully write in English. Accordingly, there are countless theories and strategies regarding how to best teach English writing to non-native English speakers. This annotated bibliography seeks to look at the ongoing conversation regarding second language (L2) writers. The research included will be of interest to L2 writing instructors desiring to be successful and efficient teachers. Sources within this bibliography are scholarly in nature and focused upon the challenges of instructing non-native English writers within the English classroom.

Bean, Janet, et al. “Should We Invite Students to Write in Home Languages? Complicating the

Yes/No Debate.” Composition Studies 31.1 (2003): 25-42. The researchers of this

scholarly article aim to redirect the line of thinking regarding whether or not non-native students should write in their native languages in the English classroom. They say that we should not be asking if we should ask the students to write in their native language, but rather “when and under what conditions might it make sense to do so” (original emphasis 26). This article argues that since the writing process is such a social and individualized endeavor, situational contexts and individual writers must be considered when deciding in what language a non-native student should write.

The authors attempt to refocus the conversation regarding home languages by identifying ten variables that should play into a writing instructor’s decision. The variables touch upon aspects such as language verse dialect, the goal of writing, the intended audience, and revision strategies of double language users. While this article is extremely helpful in introducing the various aspects of the home language debate, it does not provide conclusions or answers. Rather, the researchers posit questions and situations for the writing instructor to ponder as he or she decides how to best work with their non-native students.

Carr, Tom. “Varieties of the ‘Other’: Voice and Native American Culture.” Voices on Voice. Ed.

Kathleen Blake Yancey. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. 191-201. At the time this article was published, Tom Carr was an anthropology graduate student at the University of Colorado. This article signifies his first contribution to a professional publication. While the article is scholarly, it should be remembered that while writing this article Carr did not yet have his degree in the field. Rather, this article represents research he has done throughout his time of studying in graduate school. This may limit the reliability of his claims as he was not yet an expert on this topic.

Carr discusses how the Western world has, throughout history, created an image of the Native American suitable to the needs of Western culture. According to the author, this “’otherization’ of the Native American peoples by Western society” continues to manifest itself today among Native American writers (192). Carr further asserts that Native American student writers can be better assisted and taught if writing instructors understand how Native Americans have become Western ‘others’ (193).

The final portion of the article offers ways in which Native American student writers can best be instructed within the Western classroom. Carr lists five points of interest for writing instructors: 1) We are all ‘others’ in one sense or another. This should be remembered when we function as readers as well as writers. 2) We must consider how, as instructors, we present non-native cultures within the classroom. 3) Many student writers, including Native American writers, have multiple voices with which they express themselves. 4) We must be aware of generalizations and overly-romanticized notions of non-Western peoples. 5) The classroom can benefit greatly from non-Western cultures and voices.

This article is helpful as instructors attempt to understand how best to teach non-native student writers. Carr offers a glimpse into the marginalized past of a non-Western group. The observations regarding Native Americans can be applied to other non-Western students within the classroom as many of their identity and language issues may be very similar.

East, Martin. “Bilingual dictionaries in tests of L2 writing proficiency: do they make a

difference?” Language Testing 24.3 (2007): 331-353. Martin East is a professor in the

School of Language Studies at Unitec New Zealand. Prompted by the recent ban of the use of bilingual dictionaries on L2 writing tests, East set out to do some research of his own. The ban was inspired by a 2002 study which found that bilingual dictionaries on L2 writing tests increased writing scores by an average of 9 percent. After reading the L2 writing experiment, East identified multiple limitations to the study and therefore concluded that the results were restricted in their applicability. Therefore, he conducted a study in which attempted to address bilingual dictionaries within L2 writing classrooms and strengthen the 2002 study’s weaknesses.

East’s study conducted in September of 2003 included a sample size of 47 17-18- year-old students in New Zealand secondary schools studying for the Bursary German examination. The students were not native German speakers but needed to know the language for the exam. Each student was given a 50-item multiple choice placement test (to establish current writing level in German), two timed German essays of 50 minutes (one with and one without a bilingual dictionary), two short questionnaires, and a longer questionnaire. East concluded that bilingual dictionaries did not significantly impact writing scores. Because his study controlled for the limitations of the 2002 study, East’s findings seem to have more validity.

East’s study is applicable to the writing classroom because it included students with a wide range of writing abilities. Furthermore, East allowed the subjects to choose their own dictionaries in the study. This means that the findings of this study are not limited to specific bilingual dictionaries or to a certain level of writer. Because the dictionaries did not impact writing one way or the other, East looked to the questionnaire results for conclusions. He discovered that four out of ten students were equally happy with or without the dictionary, 62% felt more confident with the dictionary, and 66% said it was fairer to be graded without the dictionary (349). Thus, East concluded that the ban on bilingual dictionaries is unfounded and should be revoked.

Hyland, Ken. “Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.” Journal of

Second Language Writing 16 (2007): 148-164. Hyland is an instructor in the Institute of

Education at the University of London. He proposes genre pedagogies as the best way of teaching L2 writers. Hyland details the two dominant orientations of L2 classrooms: Systemic Function Linguistics (SFL) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). SFL examines how texts are related and how they function while ESP views language as a tool used to achieve a specific purpose. According to Hyland, both SFL and ESP courses can best prepare L2 writers by employing genre-driven teaching approaches.

Hyland critiques process approaches to writing (as opposed to genre-driven approaches) as failing to give language and writing real-world applicability. He says that genre pedagogy, on the other hand, views genres as culture-specific and considers those who may be unfamiliar with the culture’s genres. Thus, genre-driven pedagogy provides L2 students with training needed succeed outside of the classroom. This, according to Hyland, should be the goal of writing instructors. He says that genre-familiar teachers are more effective teachers because the skills they teach the students apply beyond the classroom walls (151).

Hyland outlines many benefits for genre pedagogy within the L2 writing classroom. He writes that genre theory provides reassurance for L2 writers because writers can recognize a “regularity and structure” to the unfamiliar language by familiarizing themselves with the genre conventions (152). Furthermore, genre-based courses encourage collaboration and scaffolding, two aspects of writing instruction that has been shown to encourage the development of strong writing skills (158). Genre pedagogy also provides a clear standard for assessment as outlined by genre rules and practices. This allows for more specific and detailed feedback from the teacher which helps the L2 student more efficiently progress and learn as a writer.

Mlynarczyk, Rebecca Williams. Conversations of the Mind: The Uses of Journal Writing for

Second-Language Learners. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.

Mlynarczyk, an English professor at a public university, wrote this book after completing a study in 1992 on the effects of journal writing in an advanced ESL classroom. Mlynarczyk was interested in examining varying writing processes among ESL students, how journals would impact the acquisition of English, and whether or not the journals would be used in reflective ways by her students. She looked at two different ESL classrooms and how the students progressed as writers through their use of weekly journals. The students were required to complete in-class freewriting and out-of-class entries about assigned texts five times per week for a total of five pages of journal writing weekly. Mlynarczyk also kept a field log in which she recorded her own conclusions and observations throughout the semester. At the end of the semester, Mlynarczyk interviewed five of her students to gain a deeper understanding of the journals’ effect.

The book spends some time outlining Mlynarczyk’s background research leading up to her study, but focuses mainly upon her own research and its implications. She dedicates one chapter to each of the five interviewed students in an attempt to analyze their journal interactions more in-depth. She reports that, in questionnaires with her students, the most commonly mentioned benefit of journals was “increased fluency – including writing speed, improved vocabulary and grammar, and ability to think in English” (52). Mlynarczyk speculates that the freedom inherent in journal writing led to an increase in fluency because the students did not feel limited by their lack of mastery of the English language.

Not only does Mlynarczyk recommend the use of weekly journals in the ESL classroom, but she also encourages writing instructors to consciously stay away from stereotypes about non-native English speakers. She writes that she noticed by examining her field log that both gender and culture impacted the ways in which she responded to the journals. Mlynarczyk says that writing instructors must be aware of how unconscious expectations and beliefs can interfere with honest and unbiased evaluations. She also says that journals in school should be read and commented upon by the teacher because it promotes a “communicative element” to the writing (169). Mlynarczyk found that her ESL students were motivated to invest time and energy when the writing felt like a social activity.

This book is a beneficial asset to ESL research because it offers an applicable teaching approach for L2 writers. While Mlynarczyk’s single study does not show the flawless success of journal writing among L2 students, it does offer solid teaching suggestions that were successful within her own classroom. However, she does admit that not all of her L2 students gained writing competency during journal writing. This leave room for further research as to why some students benefited while others did not.

Song, Bailin. “Failure in a College ESL Course: Perspectives of Instructors and Students.”

Community College Journal of Research and Practice 30 (2006): 417-431. Song works for Kingsborough Community College in the City University of New York. This study

reported partial data from a longer research project designed to look into how to help failing ESL students. Since this is only a partial representation of the data, the sample size is smaller and so the applicability of the findings is more limited than if the entire study had been presented. Song conducted ESL instructor surveys (n=17) and ESL student interviews (n=22) in hopes of identifying factors which contribute to the failure of ESL college students. The survey asked instructors to comment upon students’ strengths and weaknesses, classroom behavior, attendance, homework record, and attitude. Student interviews focused upon previous education, enculturation to the United States, study habits, family responsibilities, and perceptions about the college’s reading and writing assessment practices.

Song concludes that ESL programs should include individual, regular conferences with students, availability and promotion of outside support programs, helpful handouts explaining assignment and course expectations, and “sincere and constructive comments” on written assignments (427). Overall, teachers said that external factors such as families and jobs were the biggest causes of ESL student failure while students identified internal factors such as lack of effort and/or hard work as main causes of failure.

This article is helpful in that it identifies specific ways in which instructors can help and hinder ESL students. Song identifies research questions for future studies as there is remains much uncertainty regarding why some ESL students succeed while others fail.

Sook Lee, Jin, Laura Hill-Bonnet, and Jesse Gillispie. “Learning in Two Languages:

Interactional Spaces for Becoming Bilingual Speakers.” The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11.1 (2008): 75-94. The researchers conducted a study of kindergarten students at a dual language immersion school in Southern California in hopes of analyzing the effectiveness of the school’s policies in fostering bilingualism. The two languages at this school are Spanish and English. The kindergarten school, as is common among dual language programs, separates the two languages by teacher and classroom in order to encourage parallel development of each language. Through a series of video recordings within the classroom and on the playground, field notes, and informal interviews of parents, teachers, and students, the researchers discovered that separating languages within the school does not foster bilingualism. Instead, it leads to separation of the languages outside of the classroom.

Furthermore, the researchers concluded that separating languages within the school causes students to be labeled as speakers of one language and not the other. This causes a “thickening of their identities as speakers of either Spanish or English” which “may affect the trajectories of their bilingual language development” (89). Being labeled as a speaker of one language over the other ultimately limits the student’s bilingual development because they will be more often addressed in one language and divisions between English and Spanish students will inevitably occur. The researchers recommend implementing programs which encourage the use of both languages within the same classroom and at the same time in order to provide the most beneficial language development resources to students.

While limited in it applicability because it focuses on kindergarten students, this article is helpful because it offers suggestions for how to best accommodate students learning in two languages. As the article states, most bilingual students favor one language over the other (76). This means that most non-native English speakers will favor their native tongue over English, even though they may know the English language. Writing instructors must be aware of this tendency in bilingual student writers. Instructors must also keep in mind how the separation of languages impacts students and leads to a language separation outside of the classroom. Perhaps it would be most beneficial for non-native English students to be in a classroom that encourages them to speak and write in both English and their native tongue instead of favoring one over the other. This may allow for a more seamless transition to writing in English.

Steinman, Linda. “Literacy Autobiographies in a University ESL Class.” The Canadian Modern

Language Review 63.4 (2007): 563-573. Linda Steinman is an instructor in the

Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics at York University in Canada. While teaching in an undergraduate English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom, Steinman decided to attempt a native literacy autobiography (LA) assignment with her students. The LA seems to function very much like the personal literacy narrative assigned in English courses at the University of Dayton.

As one of the first to employ native language literacy in the college classroom, Steinman had to clearly outline her rationale and goals. Her aims in assigning the LA were to help students focus on the importance of their native language (W1) while gaining expertise in English (W2). She believed that the LA would help students gain greater proficiency in English because research shows that “writers bring skills and beliefs from their L1 writing to L2 writing” (565). Furthermore, Steinman argues that the LA would help students bring L1 and L2 together in a respectful way and aid in L2 learning overall.

Steinman discovered that time constraints prohibited her from fully enacting her LA plan in the classroom. She initially designed the LA to be an ungraded project that continued throughout the semester, allowing the students time to add to and revise their LA as they continued to gain new language knowledge. However, she soon realized that she “had very little time in which to engage in ungraded writing” (569). Ultimately, the LA project turned into a contrastive analysis (CA) project where students compared their L1 to English and presented them orally to the class. Steinman concludes that the CA is an integral part to the LA and she hopes to better combine the two assignments in the future.

This article provides one teacher’s trial and error approach to teaching ESL. It may be helpful to instructors seeking to incorporate L1 into the classroom as they plan specific activities with which to engage their students.

Stevenson, Robert, and Kenneth Mufuka. “A Comparative Study of Performance on a College

Student Newspaper: Foreign Versus American Students.” College Student Journal 39.2 (2005): 316-320. Assistant Professor of Journalism and Director of Student Publications Robert Stevenson and Professor of African History Kenneth Mufuka worked together at Lander University in South Carolina to compare the work of international student writers with those of American student writers. Both Stevenson and Mufuka used the writers who regularly contributed to the college newspaper the Forum. Each student writer was scored on various aspects of journalistic writing and integrity. The assessment revealed significant differences between the two groups of students.

Foreign students were shown to be more aware of libel risks and deadlines. Furthermore, these students exhibited higher grammar proficiency than the American students. This is significant because it stands in contrast to other studies which claim that mastery of the English language impedes the academic performance of foreign students. Clearly, these international students had greater mastery over the structure of English than the American students. The study also found that foreign students were overall more dedicated, mature, and worldly than Americans. It is important to note that the majority of the international students were at Lander University on an athletic or academic scholarship. Therefore, they may not be representative of the average non-native student population.

While this article doesn’t relate directly to teaching writing to non-native English speakers, it is helpful in that it posits some interesting points of thought for the writing instructor. In the writing classroom, it may be important to distinguish who is an international student studying abroad in America and who is a non-native English speaking American student. The international students, as was the case with the current study, probably have a solid base of knowledge of the English language and an interest in further exploring English. This may not be the case for non-native English students who are forced to learn in English simply because they are living in this country. The two students most likely require different teaching approaches to learn to write in English.

Zielinska, Dorota. “Drawing on Technical Writing Scholarship for the Teaching of Writing to

Advanced ESL Students – A Writing Tutorial.” J.Technical Writing and Communication 33.2 (2003): 125-139. This article outlines a technical writing tutorial proved to be successful in helping ESL students learn writing. According to a study conducted on English Philology college students at the Jagiellonian University in Poland, ESL students who participated in the technical writing tutorial performed better on writing tests than those who took part in more traditional writing exercises. According to the author, “This result indicates that technical writing books and journals should be considered as an important source of information for teachers of writing to ESL students” (125).

Zielinska explains that poor writers generally have low overall communication skills, regardless of language. For this reason, educating ESL students on technical writing aspects will help them learn to write in order to communicate “efficiently and effectively for practical purposes” (126). The technical writing tutorial includes teaching students to be aware of purpose and audience, how to do secondary research, how to appropriately organize texts, how to recognizes which sentence type is most appropriate, and to write coherent paragraphs. Zielinska offers suggested activities for ESL writing instructors to use in the classroom.

While this article is helpful in that it offers teaching techniques for ESL students, it is limited in its applicability and validity. The author doesn’t provide specifics regarding the study that motivated this article. Due to her lack of details, it is up to the individual writing instructor to decide whether or not Zielinska’s study was valid and when/how to implement a technical writing tutorial. Furthermore, she doesn’t outline how to locate the exact tutorial she used and found successful. Since all tutorials may not be just as effective, the chance remains that writing instructors may not be able to replicate Zielinska’s success in the classroom