While Robert Brooke’s discussion of underlife focused on the autonomy of students, in this article I apply his conclusions to the behaviors performed and desires expressed by faculty members, specifically six tenured, two-year college English faculty members who conceptualize their work teaching writing in relation to both individual writing courses and one or more aspects of a writing program.

This article presents the results of a study that examines differences in the academic writing of community college students across four levels of composition courses.

This essay contributes to the emerging conversation about two-year college teacher-scholar-activism by revisiting the work of Elisabeth McPherson, the first community college faculty member to chair CCCC. Arguing that McPherson's fade from disciplinary memory reflects the marginalization of two-year college faculty that coincided with the rise of neoliberalism, Christie Toth traces three key themes in McPherson's published work: advocating for two-year colleges and the professionalization of their faculty; subverting institutional labeling of two-year college students; and challenging racism, classism, and sexism through pedagogy and policy. While her published work is not beyond critique, McPherson's career offers historical precedent for a two-year college English professional identity that integrates critical teaching, scholarly and organizational engagement, and activism for social justice at multiple scales.

This essay offers a critical framework for engaging with Basic Writing at the two-year college. By intersecting access-oriented initiatives within the progressive tradition of basic writing scholarship with neoliberal, corporate-sponsored initiatives, the article stakes out a pragmatic space for values-driven change to calcified developmental education structures. When Students Don’t Identify as Basic Writers: Fostering Basic Writers’ Rhetorical Agency Through Community Partnerships

Drawing on interviews from faculty at one community college in Texas, this case study focuses on one college and the change process faculty experienced in integrating its developmental reading and writing curriculum. This study centers on the faculty perspective of policy and curriculum implementation, a voice that is often lost or underrepresented in the research literature and offers insight into how colleges can support their faculty who are responding to curricular change and/or policy mandates.

This essay explores how focusing on language and literacy as “ways of doing” in different academic disciplines and professional fields may spark reconsideration of how best to prepare and support students’ language and literacy development, especially among the linguistically diverse New Mainstream in community colleges.

In this essay we explore a variation of teaching for transfer (TFT) curriculum based on Writing across Contexts, published in 2014 by Yancey et al. We explain what the TFT curriculum is, how we modified it to fit our local two-year college contexts, and offer a look ahead to the continued research on this curriculum.

Two-year college faculty have begun articulating ateacher-scholar-activistprofessional identity. After tracing the emergence of this concept and calls for solidarity in two-year college writing studies, we draw on two case studies to advocate for cross-sector disciplinary alliances that expand educational opportunity, improve professional equity, and advance social justice.

The authors use three frameworks of resilience to analyze interviews with faculty from two-year colleges: individual, psychosocial, and design resilience. They describe behaviors and structures that shape the resilience of English departments in two-year colleges and suggest a model for sustained departmental and disciplinary resilience.

This study explores two community college developmental writing courses that made use of mobile devices and apps, specifically iPads and iPhones, iTunes U, and Apple Books as primary learning materials and devices.

Preview this article: Editor’s Introduction: Creating Equitable Two-Year College English Programs, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/tetyc/46/4/teachingenglishinthetwo-yearcollege30153-1.gif

This article demonstrates the important role that student researchers play in developing two-year college writing center assessment. As part of a tutoring practicum assignment, students from Bristol Community College co-designed a survey that assessed the perceptions of students who do and do not utilize a writing center at their mid-sized community college. Students collected 865 responses between 2014 and 2015. This article provides a road map to developing student-led RAD research through a two-year college writing center and its attendant course; it also shares positive pedagogical and programmatic outcomes from the project.

Despite national efforts to accelerate students through precollegiate writing course sequences to transfer-level composition, questions persist regarding appropriate placement and the support needed for students to succeed. An analytical text-based writing assessment was administered to students across four levels of composition courses at a California community college. Differences in student writing scores between course levels and the relationship between writing score, course level, and high school GPA were examined. Key findings include (1) significant differences in average scores between the first precollegiate course and other courses in the sequence and (2) weak relationships between course level and high school GPA and assessment scores and high school GPA.

This article applies critical race theory to an institutional analysis of writing curricular outcomes to assist two-year college writing program administrators, curriculum coordinators, and instructors with examining the racist implications of writing curriculum outcomes and to develop antiracist curricula that support the academic, professional, and civic success of the majority of their students.

This article positions community college students as co-researchers who participate in the author’s inquiry into the rhetorical practices of anthology editors.

Despite community college teachers teaching nearly 50 percent of all first-year composition, our experiences and hands-on knowledge are not viewed as scholarly contributions to writing studies. The scholarship of writing studies needs to be expanded through redefining what constitutes scholarly work as well as providing mentoring to two-year faculty who possess critical knowledge on composition and pedagogy.

By facilitating metacognitive conversations in the community college classroom, we can introduce our students to the process of active, engaged reading.

The purpose of the present study was to examine students’ metaknowledge of Procedural Knowledge (effective writing procedures) and Declarative Knowledge (knowledge of the characteristics of effective writing) with community college students through two open-response questions. Additionally, we examined common patterns of writing metaknowledge among responses to determine how these impacted their writing, utilizing the results from Coh-Metrix analyses of their writing samples. A total of 249 students from a large community college in Southwestern United States participated in the study.Analysis of their results showed participants reported commonly acknowledged ideas regarding metaknoweldge of effective writing in terms of Procedural and Declarative knowledge. Students focused on goal setting/planning, establishing purpose, writing, and revising when discussing Procedural Knowledge of writing and clarity, audience, grammar, and spelling when discussing Declarative Knowledge. A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) of a smaller group, consisting of 146 L1 English students, showed that students’ responses regarding Procedural and Declarative Knowledge did not significantly affect written performance, leading us to question students’ consistent application or understanding of writing metaknowledge. Instructional implications include encouraging students to examine their metaknowledge of writing and how it directly relates to the written product, to identify misuse or misconceptions and focus instruction.

This article looks at faculty views of academic freedom and finds that the views of tenured faculty with programmatic responsibilities are significantly different from those of experienced contingent faculty.

This article defines a principled, critical orientation towards reform initiatives based on two instructors’ experiences as well as interviews with two-year college instructors across the country.

This article reports on a study focused on understanding the relationship between teachers’ emotional responses and the larger contextual factors that shape response practices. Drawing from response and emotion scholarship, this article proposes affective tensions as a way for understanding the tug and pull that teachers experience between what they feel they should do (mostly driven from a pedagogical perspective) and what they are expected to do (mostly driven by an institutional perspective) in a contextual moment. The case study of Kim, a community college instructor, offers an analysis of two affective tensions that emerged from her think-aloud protocol (TAP): responding to grammar/sentence errors over content and responding critically to students she likes. Kim’s case reveals the underlying affective tensions between individual emotions, cultural constructions, and institutional contexts that are negotiated while she responds to student writing. This article concludes with suggestions for identifying emotions and affective tensions that both influence and paralyze writing teachers’ response practices.

Preview this article: Review: John Dewey and the Future of Community College Education, by Clifford P. Harbour, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/tetyc/45/2/teachingenglishinthetwo-yearcollege29432-1.gif

This article presents findings from a longitudinal study of student reading experiences at a community college and concludes that, as their experiences accumulated, these students learned how to succeed in their coursework without actually reading assigned texts.

Preview this article: Review: Teaching Composition at the Two-Year College: Background Readings, edited by Patrick M. Sullivan and Christie Toth, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/tetyc/45/1/teachingenglishinthetwo-yearcollege29313-1.gif

Together, these four essays by Mark Reynolds, Emily Suh, Cheri Lemieux Spiegel and Mark Blaauw-Hara, and Jeff Andelora, offer additional insights and resources for graduate programs and two-year college English departments seeking to implement the “Guidelines” principles in their local contexts. We anticipate that this symposium will further a much-needed dialogue about how two-year college English teachers are prepared.

In this article, the author narrates the experience of crafting two related position statements, one for CCCC and one for TYCA, describing their differences and explaining how each can be useful for two-year college professionals.

The “TYCA Guidelines for Preparing Teachers of English in the Two-Year College” neglects to mention portfolios or eportfolios as a best practice with which two-year faculty should be prepared; the authors argue that eportfolio pedagogy and practice should be part of two-year faculty preparation to best serve both students and faculty at two-year colleges.

This report, produced by the Two-Year College English Association (TYCA), provides guidelines for preparing future two-year college English faculty. The document, which aligns with the “CCCC Position Statement on Preparing Teachers of College Writing” and TYCA’s “Characteristics of a Highly Effective Two-Year College English Instructor,” presents recommendations for those who train future two-year college English professionals: directors and faculty of English studies graduate programs. These guidelines also provide graduate students who are interested in two-year college teaching careers with recommendations for a combination of relevant coursework and research, professionalization activities, and hands-on experiences that will prepare them to be engaged two-year college teacher-scholars.

TETYC’s Instructional Note genre has evolved and begun to contribute to an ongoing scholarly conversation by contributing new knowledge, not merely passing along teaching lore.

The author draws on analysis of a three-part study to argue that reprofessionalization of writing instructors at two-year colleges requires instructors to become better prepared and positioned to assert their teaching expertise through departmental and institutional interactions beyond the classroom.

Intended to contextualize and elaborate on the Two-Year College English Association's 2016 Guidelines for Preparing Teachers of English in the Two-Year College, this article examines the history, current status, and possible futures of graduate preparation for two-year-college English professionals. It traces the five-decade history of efforts among two-year-college English faculty to articulate the distinct demands and opportunities of their profession and to hold university-based graduate programs accountable for providing meaningful preparation for future two-year- college teacher-scholars. Based on our survey of this history and the current landscape of graduate education in English studies, we argue that transforming graduate programs to meet the needs of the teaching majority will require embracing the four principles articulated in TYCA's 2016 Guidelines: develop curricula relevant to two-year-college teaching; collaborate with two-year-college colleagues; prepare future two-year-college faculty to be engaged professionals; and make two-year colleges visible to all graduate students.

This essay explores the service-learning experiences of largely marginalized two-year college students, arguing that their outcomes are different from that of current studies focusing on four-year students; it then calls for additional research on this subset of students based on transfer potential.

This dialogue considers the future of service-learning in two-year colleges given the issues raised by Kassia Krzus-Shaw, Jennifer Maloy, and Nancy Pine, based on their experiences in two-year college classrooms and contributions to TETYC.

This study aimed to provide insights on the perceptions of engineering students from two educational paths in Singapore of desired graduate attributes by employers. Research questions: (1) Do graduates from the polytechnic and junior college paths have similar perceptions with regard to the ranking of desirable graduate attributes? (2) If not, in what ways are their perceptions different? Literature review: A review of literature on employers' ranking of desirable graduate attributes revealed mismatches in employers' and graduates' rankings. There has not been any published study on student awareness of employability skills in Singapore in particular. Hence, this study investigated the perceptions of final-year engineering students from two different educational paths of their ranking of graduate attributes. Methodology: The students were asked to rank eight attributes and explain their ranking from an employer's perspective. Results: The findings show that communication, teamwork, and problem-solving were ranked the top three desirable attributes by both groups of students. However, polytechnic students seem to reflect greater familiarity and confidence in tackling workplace requirements compared to junior college students. The implications of the findings are presented.

This essay and the teaching externship it describes grew out of our attempt to respond to gaps in two-year college English instructor preparation, particularly in basic writing, at Metropolitan Community College in Omaha, Nebraska.

Abstract Because of the author’s experience hearing from other writing center professionals at community colleges that community college students are not capable of serving as peer tutors, as well as survey data demonstrating that community colleges do not hire peer tutors at the same rate as other institutions of higher learning, the author conducted exit interviews of peer tutors at Salt Lake Community College in order to determine what peer tutors learn from their work experiences in a community college writing center. The purpose of the study was to establish what peer tutors learn, in order to correlate not simply what they take away from their experience, but also to substantiate that peer tutors can indeed help the writers they work with to learn. Since the results of this analysis were broad and represented a wide variety of concepts that are learned by peer tutors, the author designed a more specific survey to explore what they learned about writing and being a writer. The resulting data lead the author to conclude that peer tutors learn much from their work experience, allaying concerns that community college students are not capable of serving as peer tutors.

Abstract This longitudinal mixed-methods study assesses students’ perceptions of the writing center at a large (approximately 11,325 students) multi‑campus two‑year college. The survey was collaboratively designed, with faculty and student participation; it presents findings from 865 student respondents, collected by peer tutors‑in‑training. The study offers a baseline assessment (Fall 2014) of the writing center, prior to wide-sweeping changes in recruitment, staffing, and training models, as well as a post-assessment (Fall 2015) analysis of the changes in student knowledge of the WC and its purpose. It also offers data on the trajectory of student development in relation to number of sessions attended. In 2014, students’ experiences at the writing center were inconsistent; the poorly articulated mission of the WC adversely affected students’ knowledge scores, and the center’s reliance on editorial-like feedback, given predominately by adjunct faculty, contributed to inconsistent reportage in perceived learning by attended sessions. Many of these trends, however, reversed in 2015. This paper seeks to demonstrate the important role that RAD research can play in evaluating student learning within writing center contexts and articulating how and at what moments, and under what conditions, learning and development occurs in the student-writing center relationship. It also offers a replicable experimental method that researchers at other institutions can adapt and apply to their own institutional contexts and programmatic needs.

This white paper presents current research and makes recommendations on the array of placement practices for writing courses at two-year colleges. Specifically, this white paper(1) identifies the current state of placement practices and trends, (2) offers an overview of placement alternatives, and (3) provides recommendations on placement reform and processes. TYCA encourages two-year college faculty to use this white paper to guide placement reform on their campuses, to be leaders in the field and professional organizations, and to advocate for best practices with policymakers.

The Pew Hispanic Research Center reports that between 1996 and 2012, enrollment in US higher education among Latinxs between the ages of 18 and 24 increased by 240 percent. In 2012 college enrollment among Latinx high school graduates aged 18 to 24 surpassed that of Whites for the first time in history, and NCES calculations show that more than half of those Latinx students enroll in two-year schools. Hence, in 2015 Latinxs found themselves the explicit targets of community college recruitment efforts aimed to capitalize on the increased presence of students from Latinx backgrounds. Once they pass through the doors, however, Latinx students too often find institutions ill-prepared to support their retention and success. Policies intended to guarantee equity might be effective in an environment where everyone is, in effect, the same, or when people are different in institutionally sanctioned ways, as when a student is diagnosed with a disability. However, in the case of multilingual students, such policies can mean they are consigned to a kind of institutional purgatory. They are neither in nor out; they gain access to college but remain blocked from advancement by required courses or chosen programs of study.

ost writing assessment at the college level is geared toward “homegrown” or “traditional” students: the ones who start their first year of college education at the same institution from which they later graduate. Assessment at Alexander’s institution was mostly effective for those same students but was less successful for some transfer students, as shown in assessment data. Instead of trying to force those students to learn the “norm” standards, the author, as WPA, began conversations with faculty at the community colleges where these students begin their college careers to determine how to honor the many different writing knowledges that these students bring to the classroom. Looked at through a lens of queer theory, this is the path to “queering” writing assessment.

In this exploratory study of community college writing centers, the responses of students, tutors, and instructors are analyzed to explore two issues: what writing challenges each group identifies and expects writing assistance with in the center and what perceptions the groups have of the efficacy of writing center assistance.

This article uses quantitative and qualitative means to assess the impact of an Accelerated Learning Program on the performance and satisfaction of students designated ESL and developmental at a large, urban community college.