Preview this article: Interchanges: Response to Shawna Shapiro, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/74/2/collegecompositionandcommunication32281-1.gif

While many STEM faculty believe Writing-to-Learn to be an effective instructional tool, instructional barriers such as the time and effort required to provide substantive feedback to their students limit the use of writing in STEM classrooms. Incorporating peer review and revision into the writing process can help mitigate these barriers while additionally supporting the learning process. This study presents an analysis of a Writing-to-Learn assignment that incorporates peer review and revision into a large introductory statistics course, where this study specifically focused on whether engaging with these processes results in changes in how students write about the content targeted by the assignment. Our results demonstrate that students made content-focused revisions between drafts that increased the amount of content they explained correctly. Additionally, our study provides evidence that students benefit from reading peers’ work in a content-focused peer review and revision process. Overall, this study shows that incorporating peer review and revision into writing assignments focused on developing content knowledge provides students with substantive feedback and enhances students’ conceptual learning.

Critical language awareness offers one approach to communaljusticing, an iterative and collective process that can address inequities in the disciplinary infrastructure of Writing Studies. We demonstrate justicing in the field’s pasts, policies, and publications; offer a model of communal revision; and invite readers to become agents of communal justicing.

This systematic review of 46 published articles investigates the constructs employed and the meanings assigned to writing in writing-to-learn assignments given to students in science courses. Using components of assignments associated with the greatest learning gains—meaning making, clear expectations, interactive writing processes, and metacognition—this review illuminates the constructs of writing that yield conceptual learning in science. In so doing, this article also provides a framework that can be used to evaluate writing-to-learn assignments in science, and it documents a new era in research on writing to learn in science by showing the increased rigor that has characterized studies in this field during the past decade.

Transfer student writers, who comprise more than one-third of all college students, are simultaneously experienced writers and first-year students at their new institutions. Despite their complicated positions, these students have received very little attention from composition specialists. This article responds to the paucity of attention to transfer student writers by reporting on a multiyear study that alternated between investigations of the experiences of these students and programmatic changes designed to address their expressed needs and concerns. The guiding principle of this work, and of the advice offered to colleagues interested in supporting transfer student writers on their own campuses, is a combination of institutional and student changes or mutual adjustments.

Examination of the perspectives and experiences of faculty, graduate student instructors, and undergraduates participating in a WAC/WID program shows how discipline-focused WAC/WID principles are often resisted, interrogated, and subverted by all three groups of stakeholders. New disciplinarity, especially its concepts of borderlands and elasticity, offers a promising focus for WAC/WID.

Grounded in the principle that writing assessment should be locally developed and controlled, this article describes a study that contextualizes and validates the decisions that students make in the modified Directed Self-Placement (DSP) process used at the University of Michigan. The authors present results of a detailed text analysis of students’ DSP essays, showing key differences between the writing of students who self-selected into a mainstream first-year writing course and that of students who self selected into a preparatory course. Using both rhetorical move analysis and corpus-based text analysis, the examination provides information that can, in addition to validating student decisions, equip students with a rhetorically reflexive awareness of genre and offer an alternative to externally imposed writing assessment.

Contributors to this symposium recall and reflect on changes of mind they have experienced, noting the relationship of these to larger concerns of English studies as a profession.

Anne Ruggles Gere and Daniel Berebitsky take the No Child Left Behind legislation as their starting point to review relevant literature on teacher quality. They document what is becoming an increasingly disturbing pattern: discrepancies in the distribution of highly qualified teachers with the most experienced teachers being the least likely to work with students from diverse social and economic backgrounds.

Silence has positive as well as negative attributes, and composition teachers can help students understand and use its aesthetic, ethical, and political resources in their personal writing. Approaching silence in these ways can establish new alignments among the expressivist, psychoanalytical, and social discourses that circulate around the term personal writing.

Deborah Brandt, Ellen Cushman, Anne Ruggles Gere, Anne Herrington, Richard E. Miller, Victor Villanueva, Min-Zhan Lu, Gesa Kirsch, The Politics of the Personal: Storying Our Lives against the Grain. Symposium Collective, College English, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Sep., 2001), pp. 41-62

This symposium presents a written dialogue of scholars expressing not only excitement but also frustration over the ways in which current work in composition and literacy studies has explored the politics of the personal.

Preview this article: Comment Resonse: "Two Comments on Service Learning and English Studies: Rethinking" Public "Service", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/61/3/collegeenglish1127-1.gif

Uses the example of service learning to examine connections between and definitions of public and private as they are deployed in writing, literacy studies, and the field of English. Argues that, done effectively, service learning fits well into an English Studies that is reconsidering its own boundaries and internal relationships.

Stories of how two-year colleges transform lives must be told more widely.

Preview this article: Learning Literacies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/57/6/collegeenglish9103-1.gif

Preview this article: Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extracurriculum of Composition, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/1/collegecompositioncommunication8799-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Composition and Literature: The Continuing Conversation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/51/6/collegeenglish11280-1.gif

Drawing upon previously unpublished archival materials as well as historical accounts, Gere traces the history of writing groups in America, from their origins over a century ago to their recent reappearance in the works of Macrorie, Elbow, Murray, and others.From this historical perspective Gere examines the theoretical foundations of writing groups, challenging the traditional concept of writing as an individual performance. She offers instead a broader view of authorship that includes both individual and social dimensions, with implications not only for the teaching of composition but also for theories of rhetoric and literacy.

Preview this article: Talking About Writing: The Language of Writing Groups, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/19/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15629-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Teaching Writing Teachers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/47/1/collegeenglish13308-1.gif

Like all second editions, the new version of Richard Graves' Rhetoric and Composition: A Sourcebook for Teachers implies the success of the first edition. But that success itself also radiates questions about the nature and purposes of the courses that might use the book, about the texts with which it competes in the marketplace, about what prompts a second edition, and about the relationship of such textbooks and courses graduate education in English. All these questions frame the larger issue of the continuing emergence of composition studies. Any course using the Graves book (or one of its competitors) is a relatively new one because composition instructors have had rely, until recently, on an informal curriculum for their training. To be sure, there have been exceptions such as Fred Newton Scott, who in the early decades of this century trained graduate students at the University of Michigan in what might today be described as composition studies. And Herbert Cheek reports in his retrospective Forty Years of Composition Teaching (College Composition and Communication, 6 [1955], 4-10) that some universities began by 1940 to have distinguished specialists in linguistics, in semantics, and in logic who were graduate students how apply what they could learn about these subjects composition teaching (p. 9). Most instructors of writing have, however, learned through the informal curriculum of ideas gleaned from self-sponsored reading, orientation sessions, and conversations with other instructors, rather than in graduate classes. When Harold Allen made his 1951-52 tour of forty-seven composition programs, he found only five graduate courses on composition, and not all of the five were offered regularly (Preparing the Teachers of Composition and Communication-A Report, CCC, 3 [1952], 3-13).

Titis monograph explores the conflicts in attitudes toward language that occur and-in which English teachers may be asked to uphold forms and conventions oftraditional grammar standards while they have linguistic training and knowledge that support a sore flexible language usage. Chapters deal with conflicts in attitudes toward lan'guage, language attitudes and the change process, changing language kttitudes within the profession, and changing language attittdes in the community. An appendix includs questionnaires and rating smiles concerning language usage and attitudes. A selected bibliography contains sections on dialectical differences, linguistics for the layperson, dialectiteaching material, attitudes toward usage, and the change process. (NKM) *********************************************************************** * heproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ***********************************************************************

Preview this article: The Development of Scales Measuring Teacher Attitudes Toward Instruction in Written Composition: A Preliminary Investigation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/15/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15783-1.gif

PICK UP ANY RECENT PUBLICATION on composition and you will almost surely find some reference to the problem of evaluating writing. Teachers and researchers alike acknowledge that pronouncing judgment on a piece of writing is both important and difficult. Important because teaching students to write, sorting students for placement or admission, and research in composition all depend upon ability to discriminate levels of quality in writing. Difficult because the theoretical basis of evaluation remains unarticulated. In contrast, composition instruction has begun developing a coherent set of assumptions. For example, theorists may disagree on the relative merits of classical, tagmemic, dramatistic, and prewriting forms of invention, but they agree on the principle that invention is part of the writing process. Evaluation of writing proceeds without a similar set of principles. Yet evaluation does proceed. The need for deciding who shall attend which college, designating those competent to graduate from high school, identifying growth in writing, or determining our nation's educational progress have spawned various systems for evaluating writing. Holistic scoring, quantification of syntactic features, analytic scales, and primary trait scoring illustrate the range of existing methodologies for evaluating writing. Rather than evolving from commonly held assumptions about evaluation, each method rests upon its own set of assumptions. Statistical computations of reader responses provide the rationale for holistic scoring and analytical scales; developmental stages of language acquisition account for quantification of syntactic features; a triangular model of discourse underlies primary trait scoring. Each of these systems and the assumptions underlying it represent careful and intelligent thought, and my purpose here is not to denigrate any of them. I cite them simply as illustrations of my point. Driven by the necessity to evaluate writing, theorists have avoided examination of the nature of evaluation itself and have moved directly to devising means (and rationales for these means) for accomplishing this difficult task. In this article I wish to propose a more general theory of evaluation and to suggest how it might be worked out in practical terms. This theory grows out of a philosophical and linguistic debate on the question of meaning. The debate, best summarized by P. F. Strawson's distinction between

Preview this article: Writing Well Is the Best Revenge, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/3/collegecompositionandcommunication16307-1.gif