Drawing upon nine years of qualitative data, including a collection of writing samples and yearly interviews, this study seeks to articulate a model of long-term writing development that can be adapted for a wide range of research and teaching purposes. The model is adapted from Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s Bioecological model of human development and draws upon key works by writing transfer scholars, longitudinal researchers, and the work in lifespan development. The model identifies the critical interplay of ecologies of writing specifically through the intersection of Person characteristics (e.g., Identities, Dispositions, and Resources) with Key Events over Time, nested in particular writing Contexts. We specifically focus on the way that various Person characteristics (including sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and socioeconomic), drastically shape writing development over Time, particularly as they are mediated by the Salience of the specific Writing Event and a writer’s metacognitive awareness. Through case studies, we trace two writers’ long-term development across nine years, spanning their undergraduate degrees, internship and workplace contexts, and for one writer, experiences in medical school contexts. With a model that can be applied to a variety of research and teaching contexts to better understand learners’ writing development, we argue that Person characteristics—mediated by Salience and Metacognition and working together with Key Events, Contexts, and Time—substantially shape long-term outcomes for writing and learning. Through this robust model, we offer methodological and pedagogical implications.

This article explores ways that the field of rhetoric and writing studies can benefit from intentional engagement with work-integrated learning (WIL) research and pedagogy in the context of transfer research. Specifically, the article discusses: (1) redesigning writing internship pedagogies to align with WIL learning and curriculum theories and practices; (2) revisiting threshold concepts of writing by accounting for knowledge, theories, and practices that are central to epistemological participation in a variety of professional writing careers; (3) reconsidering notions of vocation to emphasize the ways writers’ personal epistemologies and social trajectories interact with the purposes, aims, and values of academic and workplace contexts; and (4) reconceptualizing writing major curricula in relation to the conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and dispositions of expert writers in a range of professional contexts. In short, we argue that intentional engagement with WIL can enrich work on writing transfer and the field of rhetoric and writing studies as a whole. In addition to our theoretical discussion of the value of engaging with WIL frameworks in writing studies, we introduce our multi-institutional, transnational study of how WIL affects diverse populations of undergraduate students’ recursive transfer of writing knowledge and practices as an example of the kind of generative research on writing transfer and WIL that we are encouraging writing transfer researchers to take up.

This study includes interviews with 70 undergraduate students enrolled in online or hybrid first-year composition (FYC) classes at one of four universities in the United States and analyzes students’ perceptions of digital peer review. Arguing that the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework is a logical heuristic for examining writing studies research, this study finds that synchronicity might be more significant than modality with respect to the ways that peer review is able to achieve social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Overall, this study suggests that synchronicity is a common thread woven throughout each of the CoI presences as a potential way of alleviating negative evaluations of and achieving a learning community through peer review. Data further suggest that hybrid and online students conceptualize relationships as creating a sense of community that is work-based rather than friendship-based, that students might not be aware of or able to foresee ways that peer review applies to other writing contexts or classes, and that instructors could better prepare students for peer review in classrooms and beyond.

This study explores the relationship between the dispositions toward research that writing teachers convey through their assignments and those that their students express in their reflective writing. We applied the term problem-exploring to a set of dispositions described by the ACRL Framework and coded each clause of instructor assignment text and student reflective writing from six FYW sections, half of which were working with a librarian to incorporate core concepts from the Framework. We found a strong correlation between the proportion of instructors’ problem-exploring assignment language and students’ expressions of problem-exploring at end of term. The rates of problem-exploring were significantly higher for instructors and students in sections working with the Framework. Our results offer a new lens through which to view research-assignment design, provide evidence of how assignments can foster problem-exploring, and support the value of pedagogical collaboration with librarians.

This article seeks to theorize the pedagogical work disabled instructors navigate to create accessible writing classrooms. Through retroactive analysis, I introduce the concept of Access Negotiation Moments (ANMs) as limited, low-stakes contexts where disabled instructors define the limits of their own access needs. Ultimately, I theorize a framework for planned access negotiation, so instructors can build this necessary labor into the course-planning process. Disabled instructors are already doing this work on a daily basis, but we are only beginning to give it the meta-analytical space it deserves.

Discourse-based interviews (DBIs) uncover tacit knowledge within written composing processes. Existing visual research methodologies offer tools for a necessary expansion of DBI to the study of tacit knowledge in visual and multimodal texts. This article outlines a feminist application of eye tracking as a visual research method used in combination with stimulated recall interviews to study tacit knowledge within college students’ reading practices of comic books. Study participants read excerpts from two female superhero comics while eye tracking equipment recorded their eye movements. In a later interview, participants watched video clips of their recorded eye movements overlaid on the comic book excerpts and reconstructed their reading processes. This article summarizes major findings from the study, including impacts of rhetorical genre expertise, gender, and comics culture on participants’ reading practices. The study demonstrates that eye tracking combined with stimulated recall interviews uncovered tacit knowledge that participants accessed as they read comics.

This article draws on examples of student interviews incorporating multiple modalities to explore the writing lives of students as part of a larger project focusing on participants’ experiences of writing within and beyond the university. We explain this innovative, iterative research method combining multiple texts and maps, characterizing it as a kind of triangulation operating inside the frame of the interview. Through students’ triangulated multiple representations, the interviewer learns about, and from, students’ tacit knowledge of their experiences as it is made explicit through multiple modalities: visual as well as linguistic (oral and written). Our study suggests that engaging students in multiple modalities allows researchers to get a more comprehensive understanding of participants’ experiences. Moreover, as we demonstrate from our findings, students found that the mapping activity helped them understand their own writing and the relationships among their spheres of writing more fully. We argue for the value of engaging research participants in multiple modalities as a way of eliciting tacit knowledge through triangulating the data in the discourse-based interview.

Discourse-based interviews allow researchers to gather data about a writer’s understanding of what informs a task. This method was essential for a research team seeking to understand the impact of programmatic learning objectives on student writing development. Three decisions in the approach to this research project sought to center the student participants and make them quasi-researchers: the alignment of a clearly articulated theoretical framework with the methodology, the collection of supporting data from other methods, and modifications to the interview protocol. The study found that a writing program can facilitate the transfer of writing skills by implementing consistent, explicit, and intentional transfer-oriented learning objectives in both FYC and advanced composition courses.

This article connects discourse-based interviews with larger conversations about queer research methods. Using examples from an ongoing research project about LGBTQ+ students’ experiences as academic writers, this article describes how discourse-based interviews can be productively and ethically utilized as part of queer rhetorics research and provides a framework to attune future researchers to the need for accountability, rhetorical listening, and attention to discomfort.

In this essay, we argue that Twitch is an incredible platform for cultivating discourse-based interviews (DBIs) and has yet to be addressed in DBI research involving digital tools. To demonstrate that argument, we detail the methods behind collaborative research project between two undergraduates and a faculty studying game developers on the platform. Our collaborative approach to studying game developers on Twitch is framed as a 2022 update to Odell, Goswami, and Herrington’s landmark essay The Discourse-Based Interview: A Procedure for Exploring the Tacit Knowledge of Writers in Nonacademic Settings. After providing an overview of Twitch and recent scholarship, our essay describes three major challenges associated with cultivating DBIs from the platform: recruiting participants, managing files ethically, and scaling the project. Our focus on two interviews with one game developer reveals how a DBI on Twitch allows for participant agency. Based on that experience, we close with two recommendations for future DBIs that turn to Twitch: keep the project small, and go deep.

The discourse-based interview (DBI) allows researchers to explore writers’ tacit knowledge. This article describes how we taught and learned to adapt a DBI-based interviewing process through the reflections of both the professor and two graduate students in a graduate-level course, Field Methods in Technical Communication. By participating in a large-scale research project focusing on how online PhD students viewed their education post-graduation, current graduate students learned about planning, conducting, and analyzing interviews. The authors reflect on how they not only learned qualitative methods, but how the experience made them feel like part of a research community (as well as an academic community). Taking a dialogic approach, the professor and both graduate students weave narratives, reflections, and the voices of their participants to share their experiences in uncovering tacit knowledge using a DBI-inspired process.

This article illustrates how we incorporated discourse-based interviews (DBIs) into a mixed-methods research study informed by the heuristics of institutional ethnography (IE). As the first stage of a longitudinal study designed to understand what, where, and how writing means across our university, our research used DBIs in a writing center to uncover peer tutors’ tacit personal knowledge about writing. In tandem with IE methodology, DBIs enabled us to understand how conceptions of writing shape peer tutors’ written work and tutoring practice in relation and/or resistance to the programmatic goals of the center. The study demonstrates how the use of DBIs within IE projects facilitates dynamic exploration of the co-constitutive and socially constructed nature of tacit writing knowledge and institutionally coordinated work processes. Our research design and methodological considerations generate strategies and approaches for incorporating variations of DBIs into mixed-methods research.

This approach article describes the structure of the new Composition and Speech Program at Delaware State University, particularly in light of the use of discourse-based interview (DBI) methodology in the development process of the program. The program includes a 4-course sequence—three 2-credit hour composition courses and one 3-credit hour speech course designed to be offered in an 8-week format. The article demonstrates how the program is planned for continuous improvement, and how authors have adapted DBI for their context in at least three different ways—1) one-to-one interviews, 2) instructor surveys, and 3) professional development sessions—to articulate implicit ideas within the institution so as to use them for the programmatic refinement.

Writing researchers have long sought to make tacit writing knowledge explicit, rendering it available for learning and critique. We advance this endeavor by describing our use of the “tool-based interview” (TBI) as a variation of Odell, Goswami, and Herrington’s influential discourse-based interview (DBI). Rather than the product-focused textual disruptions of DBIs, TBIs, by altering authors’ writing tools, disrupt conventionalized writing processes, an approach useful when access to texts is limited for security, privacy, confidentiality, or proprietary reasons. We illustrate this method by describing its use in the development of Journaling , a digital tool for intelligence analysts. After describing our research context and procedures, we describe three sample disruptions from our interviews with intelligence practitioners and the knowledge elicited through these. We conclude with a comparison of the knowledge elicited by our TBIs with that from DBIs and discuss the limitations of each in light of recent work on tacit knowledge.

This paper discusses the relevance of the discourse-based interview (DBI) for holistic research and access to more layers of meaning in the study of complex phenomena. We draw on our own work in workplace discourse and relevant research from different linguistic traditions, particularly sociolinguistic inquiry. We reflect on the potential of DBI for enhancing reflexivity and enabling the researcher and participant to co-create the research problem. We reposition ‘the interview’ from a tool for collecting self-reported data to a process of negotiation which allows for multiple and alternative readings of the researcher’s findings. We close the paper with a model and set of principles that expend the current framing of DBI and we provide directions for future research.

In this article, I describe the challenges I encountered and the process I navigated in conducting discourse-based interviews (DBIs) with multilingual transnational participants in disaster recovery in the context of community-based research. Attending to the messiness and complexity of community-based research in the aftermath of human-induced climate change disasters, I created a revised form of the DBI by adding phenomenological and ecological approaches. In global contexts, transnational or language minority writers in community-based contexts often have limited rhetorical choices. By using two case studies from my larger datasets, and adapting DBI procedures with contemporary methodology in mind, I suggest how researchers can be more culturally sensitive to affective dimensions around interview situations and more ethically informed when they interview writers from marginalized communities and in post-traumatic situations.

Scholars in writing studies have positioned numerous critiques of the tacit myth of Standard English (*SE) and its use as an unquestioned communicative norm. While these critiques reflect the overlap of the field’s translingualism and anti-racist writing assessment movements, they also reveal an empirical need surrounding the writing instructors who must actually grapple with the *SE myth in their teaching and grading practices. Following Asao Inoue’s identification of the *SE myth as a slick eel that remains an assessment problem, I conducted a qualitative study using concept clarification interviews and discourse-based interviews (DBIs) at a large, diverse, four-year university in the U.S. to empirically confront the *SE myth and make the potentially tacit presence of *SE in instructors’ rubrics and grading practices explicit. Based on the results of these interviews, I advocate for a shift from seeing and critiquing *SE to performing Synergistic English Work (SEW) in the context of grading rubrics and assessment policies, making the absent presence of *SE visible, open to disruption, and more actively combatted.

In this review essay, I briefly examine Odell, Goswami, and Herrington’s discussion of tacit knowledge in The Discourse-Based Interview: A Procedure for Exploring the Tacit Knowledge of Writers in Nonacademic Settings, before discussing Collins’s expansive treatment of the concept in Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. In this monograph, Collins delineates three distinct forms of tacit knowledge: relational tacit knowledge (RTK); somatic tacit knowledge (STK); and collective tacit knowledge (CTK). I close by contextualizing Collins’s work alongside of recent research on tacit knowledge in writing studies, considering implications for future research regarding the role these forms of tacit knowledge play within epistemic and communicative activity.

Students’ completion of a self-efficacy appraisal inventory focusing on the eight habits of mind outlined in the CWPA’s Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing can help individual students reflect and improve upon the specific and individualized learning approaches that will assist them as they transition into a postsecondary writing classroom. A recent IRB-approved-as-exempt study directed first-year writing students to rate their confidence in how well they were able to engage in specific writing-related actions. Respondents included 162 students from multiple sections of a first-year writing course taught in two semesters: 75 from 15 different Fall 2019 sections of a first-year writing course and 87 participants from 6 different Spring 2020 sections of the same course. The study found participating students perceived themselves strongest at executing writing-based courses of action related to Responsibility, Openness, and Persistence and weakest at executing courses of action related to Flexibility and Creativity. In light of students’ efficacy self-percepts pertaining to the eight habits of mind, the specific “writing, reading, and critical analysis experiences” in which students should engage include (1) assignments that encourage students to creatively and reiteratively compose, reimagine, and recompose pieces using a variety of modalities and conventions; and (2) assignments that encourage students to engage in data-driven metacognitive reflective writing.

Despite statistical evidence that a majority of faculty, students, and WPAs are impacted by trauma, the field has yet to establish a trauma-informed approach to writing program administration. As a result, WPAs are left to operate without evidence-based, field-specific, best practices as we remain mindful of our own trauma reflexes and careful with the trauma responses of our constituents. In an effort to help move the field forward, this article incorporates concepts of compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma while unpacking data of the types of trauma impacting students, faculty, and WPAs. Moreover, this article proposes steps to take in order to (1) add our voices to the interdisciplinary field of trauma studies and (2) establish intersectional trauma-informed WPA leadership practices specific to higher educational settings.

This main argument this article makes is that the field of Rhetoric and Composition must expand our current multimodal framework to account for a sixth mode: the multilingual mode. Understood as the purposeful combination of multiple languages within a single composition, the multilingual mode has two distinct benefits: it allows us to more fully support multilingual students’ rhetorical abilities, and it also supports the work of antiracism in the college writing classroom by challenging the racism embedded in our current five-mode framework. To show potential enactments of the multilingual mode, this article spotlights three student projects along with student reflections on their work.

In this article, I present the results of a national study of response to student writing and argue for an approach to response I call Responding for Transfer (RFT). My corpus includes peer and teacher responses to 1,054 rough and final drafts of student writing from across the curriculum as well as 128 student self-reflection essays from ePortfolios at seventy institutions of higher education across the U.S. I present evidence from this corpus to support my argument for an RFT approach that emphasizes student self-assessment, focuses teacher response on student metacognition rather than the products of drafts, and takes response into consideration in the design of vertical transfer curriculum.

This article explores the range and frequency of First-Year Writing students’ emotional responses towards a project requiring multimodal composing and distribution of their work to an online public audience prior to and after completing the assignment. I analyzed the results using Driscoll and Powell’s emotion categories (generative, disruptive, and circumstantial) and found that students experienced a variety of emotional responses towards both multimodal composing and sharing online, including anxiety, excitement, and fear. I discuss how these findings challenge some assumptions related to writing instructors’ perceptions of post-Millennial students’ comfort with and interest in multimodal composing and writing for online audiences. The article concludes by offering pedagogical suggestions for instructors interested in critically integrating this type of digital assignment.

Over the past two decades, writing studies scholars have continually stressed the importance of fostering the development of student metacognition in the writing classroom. Not only does the development of a metacognitive awareness of the writing process help students to become stronger writers, it also allows them to more successfully transfer the knowledge they gain in their writing classes to other contexts. Although scholars have suggested a variety of reflective activities and assignments intended to encourage the development of metacognition, none have explicitly explored the potential links between mindfulness practice and metacognitive awareness. Mindfulness based pedagogies are increasingly finding their way into K-12 and college classrooms because of their ability to help students improve their memory, attention, and emotional regulation. This pilot study investigates whether or not mindfulness interventions in a college writing class can also help students develop metacognition. More specifically, this pilot study consisted of a control group and a treatment group of students, both enrolled in a foundational writing course. While both groups were asked to take the Metacognitive Writing Awareness Inventory at the beginning and the end of the course, only the treatment group participated in weekly mindfulness activities. Results from this pilot study support the hypothesis that mindfulness interventions can help to foster the development of writer metacognition in the college writing classroom.

In this Retrospective we celebrate the fifty-year anniversary of Donald M. Murray’s Teach Writing as a Process Not Product by reflecting on its impact on the field and continued usefulness to teachers and scholars of Writing Studies.

This paper describes the design and establishment of the first peer-staffed writing center in Thailand, including its inspiration, its planning, the tutor-training process, and its implementation up to and through the COVID-19 pandemic. As writing centers are relatively unknown in Southeast Asia, the writing center in focus was a fortunate confluence of factors: a motivated faculty dean, a visiting English Language Fellow, and a writing center specialist. These combined to provide the framework for collaboration with university faculty. The process involved exploring writing center methodology, training peer tutors, and progressing a community of practice. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has transformed some of the writing center’s activities, it continues to be a model for other universities in the region and beyond.

The Accessibility Working Group (AWG) aims to create a collaborative culture of access within our group, our composition program, and our larger professional and pedagogical communities. To create a culture of access, participants need to be collaborative members of a community to continuously negotiate access needs that change over time. The AWG has benefited our composition program as it is a decentralized, auxiliary group dedicated to conversations about accessible pedagogy that have inspired more effective pedagogical practices. This program profile provides the theories, goals, practices, and challenges of the AWG as a model to foster a collaborative culture of access in other composition programs and contexts.

Student retention and persistence is increasingly prioritized by state and local policies as well as national scorecards and rankings—however, the policies that politicians and administrators undertake to improve university metrics tend to ignore the realities faced by students at the heart of our institutions. Drawing on a survey/interview project involving 67 students repeating first-year writing classes at a diverse institution in the Southwestern US, this article takes a student-centered approach to understand the reasons they drop first-year writing, such as health concerns, lack of engagement with the curriculum, and their incompatibility with online learning or poorly taught online classes. In making recommendations to address the challenges students face, the author calls on writing teachers and administrators to take a more activist stance in their roles, by engaging in actions such as pushing back against exploitative working conditions, recognizing the racism inherent in strict attendance policies, drawing on work from directed self-placement to better guide students when considering online writing classes, and advocating for readings and curricular choices that take into account the diversity of students in writing programs.

Empirical methods to evaluate undergraduate pedagogy have become quite common in the field of composition studies. Reflection on and evaluation of graduate pedagogy in the field is much less common, however. In this article, the authors suggest that scholars in the field endeavor to develop pedagogical methods for graduate education, while also proposing one such pedagogical approach. The first author developed an approach for the graduate course History and Theories of Composition using an adaptation of Teaching for Transfer pedagogy. With the help of his graduate student co-authors and with interviews from experienced graduate instructors and additional graduate students, the research team further developed this pedagogy to be more effectively applied to graduate courses in composition studies. We believe this approach may be one among many to use, and we encourage other scholars to further develop this method and to develop alternatives.

This case study of students enrolled in a composition course at a large public university examines multilingual students’ application of multimodal composition practices to writing assignments that emphasize delivery and circulation. Assignments in which students remediate or translate a text in one genre or medium into another are widely used to foster transfer of writing knowledge from classrooms to public discourse. Remixing may be especially useful for multilingual writers by allowing them to draw on translingual meaning-making strategies. However, such assignments must be framed in ways that make explicit the rhetorical implications of how remediated or translated texts are taken up and circulated within larger ecologies and suggest how uptake can be measured and assessed to be useful. This article draws on Rhetorical Genre Studies and Translingualism to address this issue in Multimodal Composition by outlining a pedagogical approach that emphasizes delivery and measuring uptake.

In this article, we argue that using students’ reflective writing to understand specific aspects of their classroom experience requires that researchers systematically integrate into the curriculum reflections that responsibly attend to both students’ learning and the focus of classroom research. Informed by recently published articles on reflection and collaborative writing and learning, this argument contributes to recent Composition Forum discussions (e.g. VanKooten; Fiscus; Winzenreid et al.; Jankens, Learning How to Ask ). We also aim to demonstrate that the process of learning how to do research “right” is a recursive endeavor. Addressing the challenging results of our study, we consider ways that more systematic reflection in our paired courses might have brought collaborative learning even more to the surface both for students and our research. We pose that, in retrospect, had we developed a series of reflective writing assignments that explicitly prompted students to describe learning as part of a social process within the classroom, this reflective writing would likely have better highlighted collaboration for our research and for students’ meta-awareness of their learning processes.

Drawing on qualitative data gathered from interviews with twelve doctoral students in a composition program at a mid-size public university in the Northeast United States, this article documents graduate teacher-scholars’ conceptual understanding of translingual pedagogy in the context of college writing instruction. I analyze and describe the possibilities and challenges confronted by prospective composition teacher-scholars in implementing translingual pedagogy and conclude the article with a discussion of implications for mentoring programs, WPAs, and TAs.

As WPAs at a research institution without a WAC program, we embarked on this project to learn about the types of writing prompts faculty across the disciplines assign and their expectations for student writing. Although our first-year composition program is genre-based and focuses on teaching for transfer, we did not know what genres other faculty assigned nor which writing skills they hoped students could apply to their assignments. We also wanted to understand how they crafted writing assignment prompts and how they perceived students’ abilities to meet their expectations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 faculty members from a range of disciplines about their writing assignments in courses in the major. We found that faculty (1) want or even expect students to take on certain disciplinary roles as writers in their assignments; (2) but they are not routinely making these expectations clear to students in their writing assignment prompts. To address these impediments to transfer, we present a three-part rhetorical framework for faculty that relies on genre to clarify expectations and allows for cuing to promote transfer for students in disciplinary writing contexts.

In this interview, Victor Villanueva and Tabitha Espina discuss, through a review of Villanueva’s publications, how the teaching of Composition has changed throughout the years to consider the needs and exigencies of the times. Using rhetorical analysis, particularly of purpose and audience, and application of some of Villanueva’s most influential texts, Villanueva and Espina discuss the field’s critical responses to the racial reckoning of this historical moment through translingualism, decolonial pedagogies, agonism, and pluriversality. While Villanueva observes much progress in the field in approaching what he has called “cultural multiplicity,” he interrogates the complexities and politics of Otheredness and critiques the disproportionate burden on academics of color. Villanueva and Espina affirm the significance of memoria as a conceptual framework that, not just includes, but essentially functions rhetorically as the means by which ideas and knowledge are experienced and communicated.