Providing contextualized, effective writing instruction for engineering students is an important and challenging objective. This article presents a needs analysis conducted in a large engineering college and introduces the faculty development program that was created based on that analysis. The authors advocate for sustained interdisciplinary collaboration to promote contextualized adoption and adaptation of best practices and testing of scalable strategies.

I am writing in response to the recent Forum essay “Taking the Long View on Writing Development,” authored by Bazerman, Applebee, Berninger, Brandt, Graham, Matsuda, Murphy, Rowe, and Schleppegrell (2017; and hereafter “The Long View”). I argue that “The Long View” was driven by the aim of identifying consensus rather than working through difference, that the principles represent commonplaces rather than a principled synthesis of research, that questions of epistemology and theory central to research agendas are essentially ignored, and that views of writing as semiotically exceptional and writing development as centered in school represent serious flaws in setting the agenda. The semiotic exceptionalism of “The Long View” represents a serious category mistake (Ryle, 1949). Taking “writing” as the unit of analysis occludes the diverse semiotic activity that necessarily shapes all textual artifacts and acts of inscription. Viewing writing as sharply distinct from orality risks reigniting Great Divide theories that had so many problematic effects on research, pedagogy, and people. Seeing school as the primary context for writing development ignores the rich roles of life outside school. In short, “The Long View” takes too narrow and problematic a view on issues of epistemology, theory, and literate lives to serve as the foundation for the critical research enterprise it aspires to conjure in our collective future. Instead, I suggest that research on the lifespan development of writing needs to begin with embodied, mediated, dialogic semiotic practice as its unit of analysis and to trace what people do, learn, and become across all the deeply entangled domains of their lives.

The editors introduce the articles in this issue and reflect on their editorship.

The editors introduce the four research articles in the issue.

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Continuity and Innovation in Literacy Research, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/47/2/researchintheteachingofenglish21823-1.gif

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Literate Practices Are Situated, Mediated, Multisemiotic, and Embodied, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/47/1/researchintheteachingofenglish20669-1.gif

The editors introduce this issue of RTE.

This issue coincides with the Annual Convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, whose theme, “Reading the Past, Writing the Future,” celebrates NCTE’s 100th anniversary as the Anglophone world’s largest and oldest organization dedicated to the improvement of the teaching of English. The expansion of publications under the NCTE imprint from a single publication, (The) English Journal, beginning in 1912, to twelve peer-reviewed journals today focusing on issues and topics from early childhood to university-level English and from theory and research to policy and practice stands as a testament to NCTE’s longstanding commitment to empirical inquiry. We realized, in other words, that we needed to find a way to celebrate the tradition of research in all of NCTE’s journals published throughout its history.

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: On the Complexities of Writing and Writing Research, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/46/1/researchintheteachingofenglish17147-1.gif

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Generalizability or a Thousand Points of Light? The Promises and Dilemmas of Qualitative Literacy Research, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/45/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15252-1.gif

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Representations of Diverse Populations, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/45/1/researchintheteachingofenglish11645-1.gif

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Researching across the Current, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/44/4/researchintheteachingofenglish10847-1.gif

Preview this article: Editors Introduction;Countering Theoretical and Curricular Narratives, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/44/3/researchintheteachingofenglish9835-1.gif

At universities, scholars in English studies manage what Gieryn (1999) called disciplinary boundary work (the rhetorical making and policing of boundaries that construct the discipline and its institutional formations as different from other disciplines and social formations) through categorical contrasts, including: literary criticism vs. writing studies/rhetoric; scholarship vs. creative writing; quantitative vs. qualitative research; university vs. K–12 schooling; university vs. workplace; and, of course, that most basic border of disciplinarity”disciplinary knowledge vs. everyday belief and culture. The two research reports in this issue of RTE both address college-level work in the field and both highlight interesting ways in which current theoretical and methodological developments are putting pressure on disciplinary boundaries in English studies.

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Voice, Space, and Activity in English Teaching and Learning, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/44/1/researchintheteachingofenglish7242-1.gif

The editors introduce the three research studies and the Standpoints essay in this issue, all of which deal with the relations between digital technology and the development of adolescent literacy.

Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Tales of Transformation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/43/2/researchintheteachingofenglish6773-1.gif

We look forward to building on and expanding the role of RTE in shaping and disseminating research on writing, reading, literacy, literary response, and literature education.

Preview this article: Tracing Authoritative and Internally Persuasive Discourses: A Case Study of Response, Revision, and Disciplinary Enculturation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/29/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15343-1.gif

Current social perspectives on writing and disciplinary enculturation are generally grounded in theories of discourse communities. Although assumptions underlying these theories have been seriously questioned, few studies of situated writing have applied alternate theories. In this article, I explore a sociohistoric notion of disciplinarity in a case study of how a sociology student's dissertation prospectus is negotiated in a graduate seminar. A microhistorical narrative of a response episode in the seminar and subsequent textual revision is contextualized in histories of local activity. Analysis of the seminar response foregrounds emergent, nonlinear, discursively heterogeneous practices of disciplinary sense-making. Analysis of the text foregrounds practices whereby situated histories of textual production and reception are transformed into purified representations of the discipline and the author. Finally, the analysis details how the disciplinary work of revision in this setting was socially distributed and interactively achieved.

Theoretical and pedagogical interest in writing in academic disciplines and other discourse communities has grown in the last decade, but few studies have looked at advanced levels of disciplinary enculturation. In this study, I examine the contexts for writing and response in a graduate education seminar with fifteen students, including eight nonnative speakers of English. I consider how the professor explicitly and implicitly communicated expectations for the form and content of writing assignments; how the students understood, negotiated and undertook these tasks; and how the professor evaluated and responded to students' final written texts. Finally, I argue that the students' writing tasks occur in a complex, multidimensional historical field of personal and social contexts and that advanced levels of disciplinary enculturation are marked by a specific set of issues revolving around students' emerging authority and conflicts inherent in disciplinary microsocieties.