[Teaching_Composition] Agency and consequences for composition

[Charles Nelson]

Debra said,

> I have to think long and hard about whether I see my mission as meeting
> other discipline's expectations.  Much of the transfer value of what we do
> in FYC has everything to do with whether or not those next in line do a
> fairly decent job of scaffolding their students at the point of entry --as
> writers in their own disciplinary spaces.  If they reject the values,
> principles and strategies we teach---then they get what they don't expect of
> their student writers.

It does make sense that transfer value is connected to how well other
courses scaffold on top of it. And naturally, we have our own mission,
values, and principles. However, FYC is a university course for all
students, and others do have a stake in it, as they may also in other
lower division composition courses. Even the sciences attempt to meet
the expectations of other disciplines. Math has two types of linear
algebra, one for math majors and one for engineers. Physics has
sections of introductory physics for their majors and others for
engineers, and others still for non-science majors. I suppose it's the
science equivalent of WAC, and another argument for WAC FYC.

Thus, there remain the expectations of a "product." After taking
linear algebra, a student can, for example, use matrices to solve
problems, a visible, tangible outcome of the course. And I'm assuming
students can transfer this knowledge to later courses. Is the
scaffolding better for linear algebra than FYC? If yes, why?

With Bernard,
> I don't think two freshman composition classes or
> one freshman composition class and one junior composition class are
> sufficient to prepare students to write well in their disciplines.

At the same time, what is it that FYC prepares students for? What
sorts of writing knowledge/development should be visible in students'
writing who pass FYC that weren't (as) visible at the beginning of the
course and that transfer to other courses?  To have ownership of
composition, we need to pinpoint these areas and communicate them to
other departments, along with supporting research. Values, principles,
and even strategies are not sufficient to give us ownership of
composition when other stakeholders are involved.

Bernard also noticed, as others have, that different disciplines
critique our performance, somehow simultaneously being and not being
experts. Naturally, the expertise of evaluating is not the same as
that of producing. When my computer crashes, I take it to the Geek
Squad, and although I can't do what they do, I can figure out whether
or not they've fixed my computer.

Doug stated,
> We, instead, know that
> FYC has taught students A KIND of writing, and that students will face
> other *kinds* of writing -- not so much "levels" of writing -- in their
> disciplinary studies.

For me, this argues against generic FYC courses. After all, why would
anyone want to learn a kind of writing that they will not use anywhere
else? And it argues for WAC courses. Perhaps that is the best way to
teach writing and also meet disciplinary expectations. How does that
affect ownership of composition?

Even so, the fact that there are different kinds of writing does not
mean there are not different levels of writing. Obviously, one can
improve one's writing in the same kind of writing. So, a composition
program's mission should be able to answer this question: What should
students be able to do after one semester (or 2) of FYC that is
visible in their writing and that can transfer to other courses? If we
are to be "stewards of good writing," shouldn't we be able to answer
this question and communicate and show the answer to other
departments?

Charles Nelson