Preview this article: Review: The Matter of Assignments in Writing Classes and Beyond, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/74/5/collegeenglish19333-1.gif

What if two reviewers read and reviewed the same book and then commented on the review written by the other? And what if the book author could then respond to their entire exchange?

In literacy and composition studies, efforts to develop data-driven theories of disciplinary writing expertise and of writers’ developmental processes in joining specific discourse communities have so far been limited. This case study, of one writer’s experiences as an undergraduate history major, parses the multiple knowledge domains comprising disciplinary writing expertise and compares his beginning and later work for signs of developmental progress. A conceptual model of five knowledge domains writers must draw upon—discourse-community knowledge, subjectmatter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing-process knowledge—is applied to the data both for analysis of the case and for exploring the usefulness of the conceptual model for further empirical and theoretical work. What results is a fuller depiction of the complexities of gaining expertise in any given discourse community, as well as an indication of the importance of educators across all disciplines considering the multi-dimensional and developmental nature of their curricula for building literacy skills.

Preview this article: Reviews: Introducing English: Essays in the Intellectual Work of Composition by James F. Slevin, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/56/1/collegecompositioncommunication3996-1.gif

Over the past thirty years, has flowered as a discipline in the academy. Doctoral programs in abound, and its position in the pantheon of academic fields seems assured. There is plenty of work in composition. But what is the nature of that work now, and what should it be? James Slevin asks such probing, primary questions in Introducing English, an overdue assessment of the state of by one of its most respected practitioners. Too often, Slevin claims, representations of take the form of promoting the field and its specialists, rather than explaining the fundamental work of and its important consequences. In thirteen thematically and methodologically linked essays, Slevin argues toward a view of the discipline as a set of activities, not as an enclosed field of knowledge. Such a view broadens the meaning of the work of to include teaching and learning, a two-way process, creating alliances across conventional educational boundaries, even beyond educational institutions. Slevin traces how emerged for him not as a vehicle for improving student writing, but rather as a way of working collaboratively with students to interpret educational practices and work for educational reform. He demonstrates the kind of classroom practice - in reading accounts of the Anglicization of Pocahontas - that reveals the social and cultural consequences of language and language education. For good or ill, writes Slevin, composition has always been at the center of the reproduction of social inequality, or of the resistance to that process. He asks those in the discipline to consider such history in the reading and writing they ask students to do and the reasons they give for asking them to do it. A much-anthologized essay by E. B. White from The New Yorker is the site for an examination of genre as social institution, introducing the ways in which the discourses of the academy can be understood as both obstacle and opportunity. Ultimately, Introducing English is concerned with the importance of writing and the teaching of writing to the core values of higher education. Composition is always a metonym for something else Slevin concludes. Usually, it has figured the impossibility of the student body - their lacks that require supplement, their ill-health that requires remedy. Introducing English introduces a new figure - a two-way process of inquiry - that better serves the intellectual culture of the university. Chapters on writing across the curriculum, university management, and faculty assessment (the tenure system) put this new model to practical, innovative use. Introducing English will be necessary reading for all those who work with composition, as well as those engaged in learning theory, critical theory, and education reform.

How can we prepare the workforce of tomorrow to meet the increasing writing demand placed upon them in the Information Age? In this text, Anne Beaufort provides a multidimensional response to this critical question. Through analyzing the knowledge domains writers draw upon in specific writing situations, Beaufort illuminates the conditions that contribute to the ongoing development of writing skills. Using findings gathered in a longitudinal study of four women, Beaufort renders an ethnographical account of how writers are socialized into ways of communicating according to the conventions of their workplace. Beaufort offers a view of the developmental process entailed in attaining writing fluency in school and beyond, and the conditions that contribute to acquiring such expertise. Her book illuminates what it takes to foster the flexibility and versatility writers must possess in the workplace of the 21st century.

Taking a social constructionist point of view and drawing on the work in cognitive psychology on situated cognition and expert performances, this study reports on a segment of an ethnography of writing in a workplace setting that reveals the interconnections of discourse community goals, writers' roles, and the socialization process for writers new to a given discourse community. Specifically, the data reveal 15 different writing roles assumed by members of the discourse community that depict a continuum from novice to expert writing behaviors. Writing roles were defined in relation to both the importance to community goals of the text to be written and to the amount of context-specific writing knowledge required to accomplish the task. The study applies the notion of legitimate peripheral participation in a discourse community and creates a framework for conceptualizing a social apprenticeship in writing either in school or nonschool settings.

Takes a systematic approach to defining and operationalizing the notion of discourse community, drawing on data from an ethnography of writing in a workplace setting. States that a single genre varied in form and function depending on the specific discourse communities in which it was used--writing events took on layered meanings in relation to other communicative activities.