This thesis examines the context in which Advanced Placement (AP) English policies are made, examining the political and economic realities that impact policy decisions as well as the discipline-based critiques of the AP English program which have led many writing program administrators (WPAs) and faculty to question existing credit and placement policies. Recent efforts to dramatically expand the AP program have left many questioning whether the AP English experience actually fulfills the promises suggested by the program. After reviewing current literature relating to AP English, this thesis examines the findings of an empirical study conducted at BYU. The study evaluates the outcomes of AP English based on student writing in an actual college setting, focusing on the predictive validity of AP exam scores. Conclusions are drawn from the findings of the study and the review of literature. Recommendations are made for evaluating and designing AP policies that respond sensitively and fairly to all the stakeholders while encouraging WPAs and interested faculty to actively define the role of AP English within the college curriculum.

No description available.

<p dir="ltr">Historically, teaching first-year composition has been integral to graduate education in English and writing studies (Latterell, 1996). However, as best practices for teaching writing evolve, so do practices for training graduate students to teach it. Graduate instructor training (GIT) now encompasses not only writing pedagogy education (WPE), but also professional development and mentoring for careers both in and outside of academia. To date, research has focused on GIT programs sited at institutions that house doctoral programs, leaving out most master’s-granting institutions, even though they are far more numerous and serve many students. These institutions serve student populations with varied career goals, especially now as the purpose of a master’s degree in English and writing studies is evolving (Strain & Potter, 2016). </p><p dir="ltr">I conducted a three-phase study designed to highlight graduate instructor training programs for first-year composition at master’s-granting institutions in the United States. In my first phase, I developed a database of all master’s-granting institutions with English and writing studies programs (476 institutions) utilizing NCES, Carnegie Classification, and publicly available website data. I then surveyed writing program administrators (WPAs) and other faculty in the programs (n=41) that employed graduate student instructors (GSIs), focusing on program conditions, the first-year composition course, and the responsibilities of GSIs. In phase three, I conducted interviews with faculty (n=13) to gain more insight on curricular and administrative choices within their institutional contexts. My results show that faculty design curricula, training, and mentoring prioritizing students’ needs. WPE serves as pedagogical preparation and as a site of disciplinary enculturation. Participants share a desire for more resources that focus on designing curricula and programs within limited institutional resources. Additionally, as a discipline we need more comprehensive methods for documenting programmatic practices.</p>

<p dir="ltr">The early COVID-19 pandemic presented a sudden and shared challenge to educators across the country. This dissertation focuses on the challenges presented to writing program administrators (WPAs), a group in higher education who provides leadership and guidance to courses which frequently fulfill writing requirements for students such as First Year Composition. In asking what we can learn from these WPAs who supported teaching and learning in difficult times, I arrive at an understanding of education which is always changing and in crisis. I position writing program administration—which is often poorly-understood, capacious work—within what we know about wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973), which are iterative and socially situated in ways that call for responsiveness and collaboration. To respond to this exigence, I begin to describe an approach of <i>agile writing program administration</i>, which centers the needs of students and teachers through changes that affect teaching and learning.</p><p dir="ltr">My study began with a survey (n=55) collecting information from WPAs on how they targeted support to instructors in 2020’s Emergency Remote Teaching. I then conducted a series of two interviews (n=13) that included narratives of that support, reflections on programmatic decisions, and analysis of texts created to support instructors and students. This data analysis led me to four themes that describe agile WPAs in the early pandemic: centering humans; promoting accessibility and usability; responding to users; and strategizing to respond to change.</p><p dir="ltr">Responding to Lindquist's (2021) call for the field of writing studies to revisit its commonplaces of work, I reconsider commonplaces of writing program administration: its activities, what it takes for granted, and what often goes unseen with this work. Most importantly, I move away from any commonplace understanding of education as stable. Instead, I argue that writing program administration, like any wicked problem, is an iterative problem which therefore requires iterative response. Just as the pandemic didn't definitively end, the issues facing down a WPA continue and change and multiply. WPAs are asked to navigate changes in student populations and needs, updates to local and statewide policies, and an increasingly contingent instructional labor force in higher education. An agile framework for writing program administration can inform more practical and intentional ways for WPAs to achieve their goals of supporting, first and foremost, the instructors and students involved in these writing programs.</p>