ENGL 538/LLSS 593: Composition Theory/Writing Theory for Teachers
Professor: Todd Ruecker
Description:
Although a relatively young discipline, composition studies has a rich history with many areas of inquiry that influence the work we do as writers and teachers of writing. In this course, we will explore these many areas by going to the research directly: reading and discussing articles published in various composition journals over the last several decades. We will explore theories of audience, genre, process, collaboration, second language writing, multimodal composition, among others. By the end of the course, students should emerge with a broad understanding of various theories circulating in composition and have the understanding necessary to pursue further work in a particular area. Class work will include weekly readings (typically 4-5 articles) and responses, a synthesis of work on a particular topic, and a final paper exploring a particular theory in depth.
Learning Outcomes:
Students will be able to...
Course Readings:
Since this is a graduate course, the reading load will be challenging, averaging the equivalent of 4-5 academic articles weekly.
Grading/Assignments:
15% - Participation: As this is a seminar, participation in weekly in class and online discussions is a vital component of the course. In order to participate, it is important that you complete the readings and responses on time and keep absences to a minimum.
5% - Class Discussion Leader: During one week of class, you’ll help lead discussion and/or another type of activity related to the readings for the week.
20% - Weekly Responses: These 2-page weekly assignments will ask you to synthesize and respond to the readings of the day, geared to preparing you to discuss them in class.
20% - Research Trace: In this 3-5 page paper, you will trace the evolution of thought on a particular issue across 4-5 articles.
30% - Seminar Paper/Research Project Proposal: Outside of weekly readings, this will be the largest assignment of the semester. You’ll be expected to focus on a topic related to the course, producing a 15-20 page paper that approaches publishable quality. If you’re focused on an empirical project, there’s also the possibility submitting the first parts of a research paper and a full IRB proposal.
10% - Presentation: This presentation will be centered on your seminar paper/research project proposal and will be given during exam week before the final paper is due.
General Policies:
1. You should attend every class meeting. Emergencies and other activities like professional conferences do arise, however, so exceptions can be made. A successful graduate seminar depends on the participation of everyone. You should not expect an A in the course if you miss more than 2 class meetings, which is the equivalent of two weeks of class.
2. Complete the readings on time and avoid turning work in late. The weekly responses will be accepted late at 50% their total value for 24 hours at which point they will no longer be accepted. The other projects should be turned on the date assigned, with a 10% deduction for each day late unless previous arrangements are made.
3. Incompletes will be given only in the event of an emergency. These are reserved for students who have successfully completed the work all semester and have an extenuating circumstance (death in the family, serious illness, etc.) which prevents them from completing the work by the end of the semester.
4. Academic dishonesty is an issue I take very seriously and something I don’t expect to be a problem in a graduate course. If I discover that you have plagiarized for this class, I will follow University policy for reporting the issue.
Semester Schedule:
Week 1 – 1/25
Theory and Composition
Sommers, N. I. (1979). The need for theory in composition research. College Composition and Communication, 46-49.
Berlin, J. A. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories. College English, 765-777.
Fulkerson, R. (2005). Composition at the turn of the twenty-first century. College Composition and Communication, 654-687.
Reid, E. S. (2007). Anxieties of influencers: Composition pedagogy in the 21st century. Writing Program Administration, 31(2), 241-249.
Week 2 – 2/1
The Role of First-Year Writing/Composition
Berlin, J. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50(5), 477-494.
Hairston, M. (1992). Diversity, ideology, and teaching writing. College Composition and Communication, 43(2), 179-193.
Trimbur, J., Wood, R. G., Strickland, R., Thelin, W. H., Rouster, W. J., Mester, T., & Hairston, M. (1993). Responses to Maxine Hairston," Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing" and Reply. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 248-256.
Lindemann, E. (1993). Freshman composition: No place for literature. College English, 55(3), 311-316.
Tate, G. (1993). A place for literature in freshman composition. College English, 55(3), 317-321.
CWPA (2014). WPA Outcomes Statement. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html
We’ll divide the following readings among students:
Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (1999). Cross-Cultural Composition: Mediated Integration of US and International Students. Composition Studies, 27(1).
Downs, D. & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning “First-Year Composition” as “Introduction to Writing Studies.” College Composition and Communication, 58(4), 765-89.
Preston, J. (2015). Project (ing) Literacy: Writing to Assemble in a Postcomposition FYW Classroom. College Composition and Communication, 67(1), 35.
Week 3 – 2/8
Rhetorical Situation
Bitzer, Lloyd (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, no issue info.
Vatz, Richard E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3), 154-161.
Consigny, Scott (1974). Rhetoric and its situations. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 7(3), 175-186.
Edbauer, J. (2005). Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 5-24.
Killoran, J. B. (2009). The rhetorical situations of web resumes. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 39(3), 263-284.
Week 4 – 2/15
Audience
Ong, Walter J. (1975). The writer’s audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90.1, 9-21.
Parks, Douglas B. (1982). The meanings of “audience.” College English, 44.3, 247-257.
Ede, Lisa & Lunsford, Andrea (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35.2, 155-171.
Elbow, P. (1987). Closing my eyes as I speak: An argument for ignoring audience. College English, 50-69.
Ede, Lisa & Lunsford, Andrea (2009). Among the audience: On audience in an age of new literacies. In M. E. Weiser, B. Fehler, & A. M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Optional:
Ede, L. (1984). Audience: An introduction to research. College Composition and Communication, 140-154.
Porter, James (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5.1, 34-47.
Week 5 – 2/22
Assessment
White, E. M. (1990). Language and reality in writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 41(2), 187-200.
Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47(4), 549-566.
Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 483-503.
White, E. M. (2001). The opening of the modern era of writing assessment: A narrative. College English, 63(3), 306-320.
CCCC Committee on Assessment (2014). Writing Assessment: A Position Statement. http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment
Optional:
Huot, B. (2002). (Re) articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_pubs/137/
Week 6 – 2/29
Process and Post-Process
Elbow, P. (1968). A method for teaching writing. College English, 30(2), 115-125.
Murray, D. (1969). Finding your own voice. College Composition and Communication, 20, 118-123.
Murray, D. (1972). Teaching writing as a process not product. The Leaflet, 11-14.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. College English, 48(6), 527-542.
Optional:
Anson, C. M., & Schwegler, R. A. (2012). Tracking the mind's eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first-century writing and reading processes. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 151-171.
Week 7 – 3/7
Invention
Rohman, D.G. (1965). Pre-writing the stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16(2), 106-112.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39(2), 167-183.
[Excerpt] Lauer, J. M. (2004). Invention in rhetoric and composition. West Lafayette: Parlor Press LLC. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/lauer_invention/
Week 8 – 3/14 – spring break- no class
Week 9 – 3/21
Revision
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. In T.R. Johnson (Ed.), Teaching composition: Background readings (pp. 195-205). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Faigley L. and Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400-414.
Monahan, B. D. (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 288-304.
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55.
Yagelski, R. P. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(2), 216-238.
Optional:
Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. Research on composing, 85-103.
Week 10 – 3/28
Genre
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly journal of speech, 70(2), 151-167.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 16(3), 148-164.
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 79-101.
Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year composition. Written Communication, 28(3), 312-337.
Trace Paper Due
Week 11 – 4/4
Feedback
Murray, D. (1969). Finding your own voice: teaching composition in an age of dissent. College Composition and Communication, 20(2), 118-123.
Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200-223.
Lunsford, A. A., & Lunsford, K. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 781-806.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
Week 12 – 4/11 (note: I’ll be away at a conference but we’ll meet in class and/or have an online discussion)
Argument
Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29(3), 237-241.
Belcher, D. D. (1997). An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 1-21.
Lynch, Dennis A., George, Diana, & Cooper, Marilyn M. Moments of argument: Agonistic inquiry and confrontational cooperation. College Composition and Communication, 48(1), 61-85.
Kroll, B. M. (2005). Arguing differently. Pedagogy, 5(1), 37-60.
Week 13 – 4/18
L2 Writing/Writers and Composition Studies
Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 699-721.
Silva, T., & Leki, I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and composition studies on second language writing studies—Past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 1-13.
CCCC (2014). CCCC Statement on L2 Writing and Writers. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting
Horner, B., Lu, M. Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303-321.
Atkinson, D., Crusan, D., Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., Ruecker, T., Simpson, S., Tardy, C. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English, 7(4), 383-386.
Week 14 – 4/25
Collaboration
[excerpt TBD] Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
George, D. (1984). Working with peer groups in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 320-326.
Holt, M. (1992). The value of written peer criticism. College composition and Communication, 384-392.
Harris, M. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration: Writing center tutorials vs. peer-response groups. College composition and communication, 369-383.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Optional:
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236.
Week 15 – 5/2
Technology/Multimodal Composition
Selfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy: A story about the perils of not paying attention. College Composition and Communication, 411-436.
Yancey, K. B. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297-328.
NCTE (2006). NCTE statement on multimodal literacies. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/multimodalliteracies
Shin, D. S., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal composition in a college ESL class: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 376-395.
Fraiberg, S. (2010). Composition 2.0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Composition and Communication, 62(1), 100-126.
Clark, J. E. (2010). The digital imperative: Making the case for a 21st century pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 27-35.
Week 16
Presentations during exam period, which should be on Monday, May 9th at 5:30pm
Final papers/research proposals due at the end of the week.