This study explores the benefits of multimodality in the drafting process and advocates for more disciplinary support of multimodality across first-year writing curriculums in the field of Rhetoric and Composition/Writing Studies. I explore my primary research question, how might multimodal drafting through the Literacy Sponsors Gallery Wall assignment support students' process of writing the Literacy Narrative, through an IRB-exempt study of the implementation of an original multimodal writing assignment, the Literacy Sponsors Gallery Wall, in my first-year writing classroom during the Fall 2021 semester. The results of this study illuminate valuable opportunities for multimodality to be integrated into the composition classroom during the writing process rather than it being utilized primarily as a transformative tool once the writing process has concluded. When multimodality is included as a natural aspect of the writing process, it allows more room for students to express and celebrate their multiliterate identities. / Master of Arts / Most of the time, writing assignments in academic contexts are limited to page-bound essays of block text. This is because of tradition and the cultural belief that this type of writing is the only mode, or format, worthy of value in a classroom. But that is not necessarily the case. Multimodal writing, i.e., more visually stimulating compositions that combine more than one mode of communication, are generative for student writers. However, multimodality is usually seen as a "last but not least" aspect of a draft's life cycle, meaning it is employed once the draft has been completed and is used to transform the draft into a more visual mode (infographic, poster, etc.). In this paper, I argue that multimodality should be taken up more in the field of Rhetoric and Composition/Writing Studies and embraced as a worthy aspect of the drafting process. I created a qualitative study in which I evaluated how multimodal drafting acts as a beneficial scaffolding tool for teachers.

This dissertation intervenes in a long-simmering debate about whether literature belongs in composition classes. Using a combination of empirical and textual methods, my scholarship proceeds inductively from analyzing artifacts of teaching, providing a better sense of what is happening in writing classrooms rather than simply speculating about it. In doing so, I revisit arguments made against using literature in composition and argue that the 21st century English department provides a different context within which literature and composition co-exist. One of the charges leveled against using literature to teach writing is that it is a "humanist" practice and therefore elitist. I trace the genealogy of this term and demonstrate the wide range of meanings this term has carried within the last century alone, arguing that those who raise the alarm against humanism need to clarify what they mean. Taking off from the humanistic concern with style, I analyze composition anthologies to see how the questions following the literary selections deal with stylistic concerns. By and large, I find that the literary selections reinforce the themes of the primarily nonfiction chapters, but are not presented as prose from which students can derive stylistic lesson. I then turn to analyzing syllabi, testing the accusation that those coming from literature backgrounds will teach literature in their composition classes at the expense of working on student writing. I find that literature specialists do not necessarily spend an excessive number of class days on literature, but do spend more class days on readings generally, with fewer days devoted to student writing than rhetoric specialists. Finally, I argue that the validity of student evaluations of teaching needs to be assessed by composition scholars because concerns specific to our courses--the small sizes, the frequent feedback teachers give students, the difficulty of assessing student work, and the fact that ours is a female dominated field--mean that research conducted by educational psychologists may not apply to composition. My research reinforces the idea that our course readings, assignments, pedagogy, and assessment methods should align purposively with each other. / text

No description available.

No description available.

In the last 50 years, the trend in the field of composition pedagogy has turned away from traditional grammar instruction, condemning pedagogical practices that focus on preventing and remediating error. In the early 1960s, Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer invoked the death sentence on traditional grammar instruction: "The teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing" (37-38). Having been enlightened by this scholarship, the field refocused instruction to emphasize elements like writing process, collaboration, modeling, and prewriting, pushing grammar instruction to the side. As a result of this shift in pedagogies, we are helping our students to see writing differently. We're teaching them that "good writing" is more than correct spelling and well-placed commas,which is correct. But grammar is still an important part of language, and an integral part of rhetoric. Recent scholars like Cheryl Glenn, Virginia Tufte, T.R. Johnson, Constance Weaver, Martha Kolln, and Nora Bacon have recognized this oversight in the sharp move away from grammar instruction, and have developed different strategies to rewrite the tradition so that grammar instruction can be an effective part of writing instruction. I will add to their efforts by identifying the shift in theoretical principles that makes what we refer to as traditional grammar instruction so ineffective, by using the Greco-Roman curriculum (specifically Quintilian's imitatio) as a framework for understanding where these new grammar instructions come from, and by synthesizing this new understanding into a new curriculum for the writing classroom that more effectively integrates grammar instruction.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A First Year Writing program is an academic unit that manages the curriculum, budget, teaching faculty, and other aspects of writing classes for first year students as part of a university's general education curriculum. Throughout their daily tasks, the directors of these programs must work with the requirements of their institution, must build relationships with their administrators and campus stakeholders, and must work within the mission and values of their institution. However, as higher education becomes increasingly corporatized, these institutional constraints are sometimes at odds with the research, best practices, and theories of language and learning that these program administrators know and use. In this dissertation, I explore the way these differences in institutional situation and research-based practice affect the writing program. After outlining the way these inputs interact within the writing program and create a condition of tension, I locate the specific strategies of Requesting, Enriching, Learning, Showcasing, Collaborating, and Aligning as value-based forms of action that program administrators take to navigate this tension in positive ways / Ph. D.

This dissertation examines the integral role of identity in first-year composition, a crucial site of writing instruction predominantly taught by contingent, often inexperienced faculty. It explores how identity is manifested in composition textbooks, which are pivotal in transmitting knowledge about writing and pedagogy across various programs nationwide. Utilizing established identity theory, this project aims to establish a baseline for future research in identity and writing development. Chapter 2 lays the theoretical groundwork, drawing on the works of Gee, Ivanič, Matsuda, and Hyland to offer a comprehensive understanding of identity in writing. It explores generalized definitions of identity, delving deeper into its nuanced role in first-year writing classrooms. The chapter justifies the focus on identity due to its significant influence on the writing process and composition. The literature review in Chapter 2 synthesizes prominent theories, including Gee's "Identity as Discourse and Community," Matsuda's "Identity as Voice," Ivanič's perspective on "Identity and Writing," and Hyland's concept of "Academic Disciplinary Identity." This review also establishes key terminology such as discourse, voice, literacy, ideology, and identity, crucial for the study's context. Chapter 3 details the methodology, introducing the "Textbook Identity Analysis." This case study, using corpus linguistics software, analyzes key terms within the Norton Field Guide to Writing 4e with Readings. Drawing on Gee's "How to do Discourse Analysis," the method provides a baseline framework focusing on identity. Chapter 4 is divided into two sections for systematic data presentation and analysis. Chapter 4a focuses on the relationship between identity and literacy in the Norton Field Guide, examining their intersection and impact on first-year composition students. Chapter 4b shifts to analyzing discourse, ideology, and voice within the same textbook, exploring their implications on student writing experiences. Finally, Chapter 5 evaluates the findings, assessing the effectiveness on how identity manifests in the Norton Field Guide, and how the study could be applied to other texts, groups of texts, and fields of scholarship. It synthesizes the key insights, overarching themes, and implications of the study. This chapter provides practical insights for instructors and outlines future research, emphasizing a shift toward identity in future first-year composition texts.