In the Introduction to What is "College-Level" Writing?, editors Patrick Sullivan and Howard Tinberg state that the title asks "one of the most important questions in our profession" (xiii). However, even after 418 pages of essays written from the perspectives of high school teachers, college instructors, students, and administrators, the answer remains elusive because college-level writing does not, in fact, start in college - it starts in high school - where high school teachers believe they are instilling in their college-bound students the writing skills required by post-secondary institutions. The students, meanwhile, show up in first-year composition classes to find not only have they not been prepared for college-level writing, they haven't the faintest idea what college-level writing is. Our students have more writing demands on them now than ever before -- both in and outside of academia -- what past CCCC president, Douglas D. Hesse, terms "obliged" and "self-sponsored" writing (349). The job market has gone global and careerism is a reality for the college graduates of today. Yet, college writing instruction represents the last chance students have to learn the rhetorical traditions behind the writing skills, along with the realization that without an understanding of process and purpose, the products they do produce will never reach full potential. It is this seemingly dichotomic relationship between the "global village" job market and the rhetorical tradition that has created the exigence for this research. This study examines twelfth grade English and first-year college composition instruction from the three perspectives comprising the College Writing Contact Zone rhetorical triangle (practitioners-professional organizations-textbooks). Following the model of analysis used by Patrick Sullivan and Howard Tinberg in What is "College-Level" Writing, essays and articles written by high school teachers and first-year composition instructors involved in the "what is college-level writing?" conversation are discussed, examining each for the common threads running throughout their different viewpoints. The curricula at both the 12th grade high school and first-year college levels is also researched, in light of the mandates instituted by the professional organizations of the discipline (the NCTE and CCCC). Specifically examined are the roles these respective professional organizations played in the evolution of 12th grade high school English classes and the first-year college composition course, as we know them today. Finally, the textbooks, which inform the curricula of 12th grade high school English and first-year college composition, are investigated in regards to scope and sequence, assumptions, and authorship. The learning theories driving the textbooks are then used to construct the definition of college-level writing from the perspective of textbook publishers. The answer to the "What is college-level writing?" question emerging from this research is not what one might expect. College-level writing, as an entity, does not exist because college-level writing is the result of college-level discourse literacy. Since first year college students must step outside their comfort zone into Pratt's contact zone, perhaps, "instead of asking how to make high school writing prepare students for college writing ,. . ." we should be asking what literacy looks like"(Thompson 80). Making students aware of the different discourse communities in existence at the college level (Hesse's self-sponsored and obliged) is the first step in their being able to learn what writing is considered appropriate within each discourse community. What is needed is a new paradigm in the form of a transitional composition class that cultivates students as critically thinking writers who are the experts of their own thoughts and ideas. Whether this class belongs in the twelfth grade curriculum or the first-year college curriculum needs to be determined, but its absence is the missing link responsible for the non-transference of writing skills from the high school to the college level, as well as the non-transference of writing skills beyond the first-year composition class within academia. Our high schools, recognizing the fact that all of their twelfth grade English students are not going on to college, teach the writing skills and reading analyses needed for post-secondary school life - whatever that may be. First-year composition instructors assign their essays and research papers expecting their students to already be well-versed in the self-sponsored and obliged discourses of the academy - but they are not. The contact zone is created and the conflict begins because students need to access those discourses if they are to start creating self-sponsored knowledge of their disciplines. It is this 'knowing,' this created knowledge, that transforms our students into writers; the writers for whom we are the stewards.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation discusses the intersection of first-year composition instructors and Appalachian language and culture at the two-year college level. Very little of the existing literature discusses pedagogy as it pertains to Appalachian students, and virtually none of the literature focuses on either instructors or the two-year college. This study attempts to address that gap and to explore the attitudes about Appalachia that accompany the teaching of writing in two-year colleges in agricultural (as opposed to coal) Appalachia. This study finds that professors express very negative ideas about Appalachian culture and language, and sometimes about Appalachian students themselves. These attitudes do not, however, contribute dramatically to differences in grades and pass/fail rates for the region as a whole. Appalachian students overall are slightly more likely to fail and less likely to make A grades. The more surprising finding, perhaps, is that students from certain either highly stigmatized or highly isolated communities are far less likely to pass the courses, with failure rates between 50-68%. These rates are far higher than non-Appalachian failure rates, and substantially higher than the rates for non-stigmatized communities and do, perhaps, stem from their instructors' inherent biases. The privileging of standard academic English above other Englishes informs the teaching of every respondent in this study and invites a consideration of how a more rhetorical approach to composition pedagogy might change outcomes for Appalachian students in writing classes and in college itself. / Doctor of Philosophy / This dissertation examines the attitudes of composition professors at the two-year college level toward Appalachian language and culture to determine if there is a correlation between professors' beliefs and students' grades and success rates. First-year composition courses are required of all students at the community college level, and these courses are designed to prepare students for the kinds of writing expected of them in college, both at the two-year level and after they transfer to four-year institutions. The study determined through interviews that professors tend to stigmatize both language and culture, but these attitudes do not necessarily result in a higher failure rate for students. While Appalachian students are 16% more likely to fail and 17% less likely to earn A grades, they still pass first-year composition courses at roughly the same rate as their non-Appalachian peers. The more successful students, however, are those who are willing to code-switch—that is, to exchange their Appalachian English for standard academic English. The study also determined that students who participate in incentivized tuition reimbursement plans (like the Access to Community College Education program) are more likely to be successful in composition courses and in college in general.

First-year undergraduate students have vastly different perceptions of academic writing, the writing process, and the value of writing within their specific academic disciplines. These perceptions differ not only from their instructors but also from their peers. Yet, while reams of literature discuss, debate, and decipher student perspectives of writing from a scholarly point of view, the first-year student voice is conspicuously absent from this discussion. This study followed 92 first-year students through their first college composition course, English 1101, in order to capture the student perspective of how writing fits in their academic careers. The results indicate that while most students acknowledge first-year composition to be essential to their academic development, few report writing assignments in courses outside of 1101. This raises questions about how students identify writing activities and also suggests avenues for further inquiry, particularly the need for follow-up research at the culmination of their undergraduate careers.

First-year undergraduate students have vastly different perceptions of academic writing, the writing process, and the value of writing within their specific academic disciplines. These perceptions differ not only from their instructors but also from their peers. Yet, while reams of literature discuss, debate, and decipher student perspectives of writing from a scholarly point of view, the first-year student voice is conspicuously absent from this discussion. This study followed 92 first-year students through their first college composition course, English 1101, in order to capture the student perspective of how writing fits in their academic careers. The results indicate that while most students acknowledge first-year composition to be essential to their academic development, few report writing assignments in courses outside of 1101. This raises questions about how students identify writing activities and also suggests avenues for further inquiry, particularly the need for follow-up research at the culmination of their undergraduate careers.

abstract: This yearlong project examines how multilingual undergraduate writers--including international visa students and U.S. permanent residents or citizens who are non-native English speakers--exercise agency in their first-year composition placement decisions. Agency is defined as the capacity to act or not to act contingent upon various conditions. The goal of the project is to demonstrate how student agency can inform the overall programmatic placement decisions, which can lead to more effective placement practices for multilingual writers. To explore the role of agency in students' placement decisions, I conducted a series of four in-depth interviews with eleven multilingual writers between Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 in the Writing Programs at Arizona State University. To triangulate these placement decisions, I interviewed some of the multilingual student participants' academic advisors and writing teachers as well as writing program administrators. Findings showed that when conditions for agency were appropriate, the multilingual student participants were able to negotiate placement, choose to accept or deny their original placement, self-assess their proficiency level as deciding to choose a writing course, plan on their placement, question about placement, and finally make decisions about a writing course they wanted to take. In the context of this study, conditions for agency include the freedom to choose writing courses and information about placement that is distributed by the following sources: advisors' recommendations, other students' past experience in taking first-year composition, the new student orientation, and other sources that provide placement related information such as an online freshman orientation and a major map. Other findings suggested that the academic advisor participants did not provide the multilingual students with complete placement information; and this affected the way the multilingual students chose which section of first-year composition to enroll in. Meanwhile, there was no formal communication about placement options and placement procedures between the Writing Programs and writing teachers. Building on these findings, I argue for improving conditions for agency by providing placement options, making placement information more readily available, and communicating placement information and options with academic advisors, writing teachers, and multilingual students. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. English 2012

abstract: Despite its rich history in the English classroom, popular culture still does not have a strong foothold in first-year composition (FYC). Some stakeholders view popular culture as a “low-brow” topic of study (Bradbury, 2011), while others believe popular culture distracts students from learning about composition (Adler-Kassner, 2012). However, many instructors argue that popular culture can cultivate student interest in writing and be used to teach core concepts in composition (Alexander, 2009; Friedman, 2013; Williams, 2014). This dissertation focuses on students’ perceptions of valuable writing—particularly with regards to popular culture—and contributes to conversations about what constitutes “valuable” course content. The dissertation study, which was conducted in two sections of an FYC course during the Spring 2016 semester, uses three genre domains as a foundation: academic genres, workplace genres, and pop-culture genres. The first part of the study gauges students’ prior genre knowledge and their beliefs about the value of academic, workplace, and pop-culture genres through pre- and post-surveys. The second part of the study includes analysis of students’ remix projects to determine if and how students can meet FYC learning outcomes by working within each domain. Through this study, as well as through frameworks in culturally sustaining pedagogy, writing studies, and genre studies, this dissertation aims to assist in the reconciliation of opposing views surrounding the content of FYC while filling in research gaps on the knowledge, interests, and perceptions of value students bring into the writing classroom. Ultimately, this dissertation explores how pop-culture composition can facilitate student learning just as well as academic and workplace composition, thereby challenging course content that has traditionally been privileged in FYC. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation English 2017

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / As an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to work in the University Writing Center (UWC) at IUPUI. This opportunity influenced my life in many ways, but none more important than my teaching. Looking back on my time in the UWC, I did not realize the connection between writing centers and composition classrooms. As a graduate student, I began to read literature that defined composition classrooms and writing centers as separate worlds. However, once I was an instructor, these two worlds were seamless weaving in and out of each other to the point that I couldn’t separate them. In fact, I didn’t understand how one could. I had read literature defining composition classrooms and writing centers as different worlds but was having experiences in the classroom that contradicted this perception, so I wanted to investigate how these experiences influenced my teaching. I sought out literature that explored the writing center-composition classroom connection to look at specific elements of my teaching and how they tied to UWC practices. This case study grew out of the initial challenges I faced as a new instructor, which led me on a journey to find my own approach to teaching composition. That journey resulted in the implementation of writing center best practices, that I learned as a tutor, into my teaching philosophy, and this background equipped me to approach writing instruction as a facilitator, guiding students to become better writers.This case study examines which writing center practices, gleaned from my experiences in the UWC at IUPUI, I’ve incorporated into my classroom, why I’ve chosen these practices, and what student feedback reveals about these practices.