# data[].attributes.headline
Writing doesn't necessarily mean improvement 

# data[].attributes.subject
Writing doesn't necessarily mean improvement 

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 13 of the FYC book essentially reviews the different aspects and approaches we have learned about this semester about composition from writing as a process, writing in connection to power, and writing as more than persuasion. I am a huge advocate of writing as a process, but I wanted to focus my post on the section of this chapter about the improvement of writing in a first-year composition course. FYC claims that first-year comp's purpose is not actually to improve students' writing. Instead, it argues that, "teachers focus their attention on the rhetorical nature of effective writing, seeking to help students learn basic principals of rhetorical analysis that should prove useful to them in their professional and personal lives" (352). Essentially, these courses are not looking to help students improve their grammar or spelling. Instead, they should focus on helping students form arguments and think more critically about how to use rhetorical practices in their writing and beyond. The ultimate goal here seems to be creating professionals in thought and skill, which doesn't dismiss grammar and mechanics, but simply asserts that those come second. I tell my students all the time that my goal for them is to become writers in the real world, whatever that means for their future career. I want them to have a practical skill they can take with them, that doesn't just focus on things they hate. How do we turn the idea of writing from a spelling test to a practical, real-life skill? I think our course this semester has really provided numerous answers to that question!

# data[].attributes.body
Before teaching, I used to work at a disability nonprofit, so this is always a subject near and dear to my heart. Even now, I work at a small charter school where many of my students have an IEP. Tomlinson and Newman's article was particularly interesting to me as it explored how students on the autism spectrum approach writing, something I deal with on a daily basis with some of my students. The authors conducted a survey of ASD students to get a sense for how the university can embrace their differences in the writing classroom. The article mentions a shift recently from looking at ASD from a medical perspective and focusing on it from a social perspective. The study was interested in how ASD students understood writing assignments, especially when writing for a specific audience. The results showed that like any other writer, students easiest projects varied depending on the individual. Many participants noted grammar as a strength, but felt dissatisfied with projects and assignments where they didn't get to write about something they liked or cared about. An overarching theme was that students often had lots of ideas of what to write about, but struggled to put those ideas into words that connected thoughts and ideas to each other. I instantly connected with that last sentiment. Many of my ASD students struggle with an assignment that asks them to write about something outside of their interests or something other than themselves. Many of my students get frustrated when I tell them they can't use "I" statements in certain assignments. My film class is currently writing research papers and I have one student who is really struggling with hers. She is a brilliant writer! But, she feels more comfortable when she can write about herself and her emotions. A research paper has been a challenge because it's asking her to lead with facts to form her arguments. I think my biggest challenge with younger students is getting them to understand that just because it's not a favorable subject or assignment, doesn't mean it's not important in some way. I am still trying to figure out that balance every day!

# data[].attributes.headline
Into the Wild: Teaching for Transfer in the Two-Year College

# data[].attributes.subject
Into the Wild: Teaching for Transfer in the Two-Year College

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article from Composition Studies because I'm a little obsessed with transfer. I teach at a small charter school, where I am the main English teacher for 6-12 grade, meaning students get me many years in a row. My goal is to teach for transfer because we have such a unique relationship. I did not realize at first when I chose this article that it was actually more of a graphic organizer than an actual article, but I thought the information in it was equally as interesting and useful! First, the authors define, "Teaching for Transfer (TFT) is a curriculum that prioritizes the explicit transfer of knowledge developed in a writing class to other contexts in which composing is required, drawing upon these key elements: sequenced and scaffolded assignments; explicit, embedded reflection; keywords; and the development of the student’s theory of writing" (14). The article also claims that first-year writing students come to college with little confidence in their writing, having limited experience with sources and reflection writing, which is key to TFT. The graph that follows explains a professor's expectations with transfer vs. a student's. Essentially, the disconnect comes from each party's definition of transfer. A teacher thinks it's useful, while the student has trouble making any connections. The solution is modifying, including grading systems like Labor-Based Grading and really showing what writing should be beyond a high school level. There shouldn't be an assumption that students automatically know what they're doing, which makes sense. When I think back to my undergraduate experience, I was definitely under-prepared when I first started my English classes. Some professors slowed down to help, others did not. I think one of the biggest keys to TFT is being realistic. About your expectations for students, and what they can expect from you in return.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Access Electronic Resources- Minnesota State University, Mankato

# data[].attributes.headline
College English: “Teaching Racial Literacy through Language, Health, and the Body: Introducing Bio-racial Rhetorics in the Writing Classroom”

# data[].attributes.subject
College English: “Teaching Racial Literacy through Language, Health, and the Body: Introducing Bio-racial Rhetorics in the Writing Classroom”

# data[].attributes.body
In the most recent publication of College English, authors Cherice Escobar Jones and Genesis Barco Medina’s article, titled “Teaching Racial Literacy through Language, Health, and the Body: Introducing Bio-racial Rhetorics in the Writing Classroom” was featured.

This article immediately caught my attention due to the modern and practical applications of it. I love reading articles that pertain to academic impacts of the world that we are living in today. It was interesting to see the ways that racial tensions and even the COVID-19 pandemic were incorporated into this article.

This article was grouped into several sections. First of all, the authors provided their concrete definition of race and its impact in their field. Race is a “socially constructed artifact to maintain systemic forms of oppression” (58). They explained how, although students may think that race does not play a role in their academic pursuits and writing, it absolutely does.

The questions that guided their studies are the following: “What are the origins in the construction of race and the body in the west? In what ways are these original constructions permeating current medical consciousness? Where precisely is the term “race” being used and with what other terms and definitions? And finally, what role can we as rhetoric educators play in opposing the dominant discourses of race and biology?” (59).

After explaining their studies and two case studies, the authors came to the conclusion that “critical awareness of the responsibility we hold as distributors of institutional knowledge is pertinent to the critical mindfulness and practices students can develop” (70).

It is incredibly reassuring to see that there are educators of future generations that are committed to this goal.

Personally, I really enjoyed this article because it took everything that we learned this semester to a truly practical level that we can apply in our learning and our teaching.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disability: “Valuing Writers from a Neurodiversity Perspective: Integrating New Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder into Composition Pedagogy”

# data[].attributes.subject
Disability: “Valuing Writers from a Neurodiversity Perspective: Integrating New Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder into Composition Pedagogy”

# data[].attributes.body
In the 2017 edition of Accessibility Studies, authors Elizabeth Tomlinson and Sara Newman discussed the writing process for autistic adults in their article, “Valuing Writers from a Neurodiversity Perspective: Integrating New Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder into Composition Pedagogy.”

The overarching goal of their study was to analyze “how individuals with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) approach writing tasks” (91). From the beginning of this article, I was drawn to the positive outlook that the researchers placed on adults with ASD. Instead of viewing autism as a deficit, they encouraged “‘embracing difference’” (92). I believe that this allowed them to have a more clear view on their research instead of a negative outlook on their participants.

From their writing, it appears as though the reason why they were inspired to conduct this study is the lack of research when it comes to writing and ASD. They wanted to find a way to provide a better experience for students with ASD.

In order to do this, Tomlinson and Newman collected 29 adult volunteers with ASD to respond to survey questions regarding impressions of writing, experiences with projects, and useful writing techniques.

In the first section, no concrete data was necessarily collected as “participants’ strengths and weaknesses varied greatly,” which supported the idea of embracing differences (98). One large similarity in challenges, however, was “particular aspects of audience” and defining what it is to be (98).

The second section dove into some more specific and individual experiences of the participants.

In the third and final section, the responses focused on “mind games and organizational tools” (100). Specifically, the setting in which they were writing played a huge role in the results of their writing.

The most impactful part of the article for me was the suggestions for teachers. These included “specific activities and accommodations to consider, with a subset of activities related to audience; provision of moral support; … recommendations about skills to target… [and] providing examples” (101). As a teacher, these tools are extremely helpful as I teach many students with ASD.

# data[].attributes.body
This final chapter of FYC was extremely helpful in wrapping up our semester together. As we read through this text, it was easy to leave behind what we left before. It was hard enough to connect and remember last week’s reading at times, let alone readings from our first week. This chapter, however, did a fantastic job of reminding all of us of what we learned through this book and how the ideas connected together.

The part of FYC Chapter 13 that most caught my attention was the section subtitled, “Writing to Learn About Community.” Perhaps this is because of the article that I read from College English, but I love thinking about the way that our writing connects to the world around us.

The author in this section reminded us that “writing is a collaborative endeavor” (359). Often times, students (including myself) view writing as an isolated experience that only impacts you (and your grade). Instead, however, we should view writing as active and containing agency. The author brought up concepts such as the contact zone and inclusion of sources that were discussed by authors throughout the text to provide examples of how writing can be collaborative.

Specifically, this section had me thinking of the political remix article that we read several weeks ago. What is more collaborative than making your own social response to something that is going on in society?

There are so many ways that educators can encourage their students to make their writing communal. Unlike what I thought prior to this course, collaborative writing does not simply mean peer review. It is so much more than that and provides so much potential for action and for learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you editors for succinctly identifying the basic conceptual themes woven through the 12 pedagogical approaches in the FYC text (process, community, multimodality, learning, and power). Like Kaitlyn, I too was most struck by the concept of community.

One Chapter 13 point I continue to ponder is “first-year composition does not focus on persuasion” (350), "rather in terms of inquiry and the construction of knowledge" (351). While I see that to be the case with the inquiry based theory and assignments outlined by Anson,  Mathieu, Villanueva, and Yancey for example, in our divisive world of today I question how students perceive the argumentation exercises in which they are instructed to take a position or “make an argument that seeks to persuade your audience” (Reid, 207).

Going back to David Fleming in GCP, I see the value of argumentation training for “reasoning with others” (249), however I think steering clear of the word “argument” and focusing on “inquiry,” "claim," and "evidence" for writing assignments provides more clarity to students (and supports the first sentence in this paragraph). From week 6/7, Adler-Kassner and Estrem (WPA Journal, 2003) provided an engaging model for an inquiry-based researched essay, designed to connect students with their topic rather than hinting they need take a position or resolve an issue.

# data[].attributes.body
I didn’t intend to read “Falafel Memories” (Rice, 2017) based on what I initially perceived to be a narrow focus on food writing pedagogy. Out of curiosity (and a love of falafel), however, once I started I couldn’t stop! My husband, a foodie, got to hear excerpts and my rambling on about it over an 8 hour drive on Thanksgiving.

Though not exactly author Jeff Rice’s article purpose, if you’re fascinated by the construction of knowledge through writing and open to the wondering journey of inquiry, do yourself a favor and read "Falafel Memories." (Even if you hate falafel.)

Rather than a food writing pedagogy dependent on decoding or interpretive practices, which Rice shows in his literature review largely “centers on critique and the decoding of representation” (123), he walks through a model in which personal writing is paired “with research around some item or issue that might seem insignificant or minor” (122). Decoding pedagogy has been used in food writing to probe power and representation (which I get the impression Rice is burnt out on), attributed to an association of the practice with scholarly, authentic academic writing. (Food writing, once deemed trivial and unacademic, is combatting an insecurity complex.)

In this case, Rice uses his love affair with eating falafel and frustration with his inability to cook it, as an inquiry prompt in which a larger issue – authenticity – emerges. He uses Jim Corder’s model to compose his narrative:

1. Subject (falafel)

2. Anecdote/memory as exigence (cooking and eating falafel)

3. Research around exigence, pattern identification (reviewing writings about falafel)

4. Writing of pattern; narrative (storytelling of falafel research and personal memories)

5. Suggestion; how the patterned narrative offers insight into larger a larger issue (authenticity)

Excerpts from this engaging article could demonstrate to students an invention strategy, and serve as an example of effective use of Corder’s model for an inquiry assignment. Since this pedagogy doesn’t aspire to unveil bold claims or absolutes about power and representation, students may find it less daunting. I do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors

# data[].attributes.subject
Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors

# data[].attributes.body
In the Spring 2021 issue of Composition Studies, Kailyn Washakie reviews the book Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors, by Jessie Borgman and Casey McArdle (2020). Seeing as I’m in the market for practical approaches to engage students in an asynchronous course, I hoped the review would help me determine if Amazon deserves my $16.

The PARS pedagogy is based upon the user (student) experience, and is most effective “when all four enactable elements are implemented simultaneously in the design, instruction, and administration of an online writing program” (200).

1. Personal: When instructors intentionally make online classes as welcoming as in-person, it creates a “safe space” for students to engage with the instructor and their classmates, and builds a sense of community. In addition to an inviting and personable tone, instructors should show personality and foster connections between students.

2. Accessibility: Online course management systems are built for instructors, so materials should be modified to meet student user needs and comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Research indicates using multimedia accommodates multiple learning styles, and planning for interaction with the instructor and between classmates is important, but the review notes examples weren’t provided in the book.

3. Responsiveness: An important component of responsiveness, which is specified as different than simply responding to students, is providing frequent feedback through the writing process. It is suggested instructors position themselves as the audience, framing their feedback in that context, using encouraging text, audio, or video. Given workload, instructors can streamline responses to individual students by sharing the answer with all students. Instructors should establish clear expectations for how and when they will respond and communicate with students, addressing the often unbounded online environment.

4. Strategic: Instructors should seek feedback on their map of activities, assignments, timelines, and learning objectives, and adapt as necessary to make the student user experience predictable and cohesive. Admittedly a challenge, is employing strategic instruction, since instructor and student expectations differ. What motivates and distracts each student varies, and it’s tough to identify in an online environment.

One of the book’s shortcomings, according to Washakie, is lack of attention on cultural differences. However, overall, PARS is a practical approach for online instructors.

Washakie, K. (2021). Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors. Composition Studies, 49(1), 200+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A672175140/GPS?u=mnamsumank&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=64e07376

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Drawing on their novel PARS framework, Jessie Borgman and Casey McArdle explore the complexities and anxieties associated with online writing instruction. PARS offers an innovative way to support your own online instructional efforts as well as those of faculty members in programs that offer online writing instruction. Borgman and McArdle offer extensive examples of how to create assignments, syllabi, and accessible, productive learning spaces. Drawing on work in the design of user experiences, they explore how we can design online writing courses with our students' experiences in mind. Borgman and McArdle encourage us to plan online writing courses strategically, and they reinforce the importance of iterating our course design and teaching practices continually with the goal of creating a better user experience for everyone involved with the course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors [Borgman, Jessie, McArdle, Casey] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors

# data[].attributes.body
I really appreciated the short list of what the professors in the previous chapters do NOT do. With so much to digest and so many different methods and strategies that we’ve read this term, it is easy to get lost. However, the reminder of things that are not necessarily included was really helpful in succinctly summarizing the omissions. The one I found most helpful as a reminder was that they do not touch on grammar. I think that is still one of the hardest things I struggle with in the high school classroom. The authors reference Redd who argues that “conventions matter because readers matter.” Generally that is how I convey the importance of conventions to my students as well. If they’re writing for an audience of teachers or graders on the AP exam, then grammar matters. If they’re writing an argument to present a verbal debate, maybe grammar matters less. But the important takeaway is that students should have an awareness of exigence and audience.

I also found the “Response to Writing” section helpful. That’s another balance that is difficult even in the high school classroom. The “Houdini” balance of being the person who needs to give grades while also providing meaningful feedback is a tough one to follow. But I think the emphasis on feedback and getting students to see writing as a process are vital in students’ growth. There was also a strong argument for peer feedback as well, with my favorite strategy being the peer discussion prior to writing, either in the form of brainstorming collaboratively or free writing and sharing. These activities help students generate ideas and build off of one another.

# data[].attributes.body
I was drawn to this article because admittedly I would have never associated sound with "writing" or composition in the English classroom, but the two activities outlined in the article by Ceraso and Ahern both show very creative and engaging ways to do so. The first activity asks students to create a "sonic object" that would "enhance a user’s overall experience" (13). The example she provided was a baby toy fruit basket in which the fruit not only makes sound, but the sound changes depending on the type of tactile touch the user performs (scratching, rubbing, poking). With one of my classes, I do a "rhetorical analysis show & tell" in which students bring in an object of their choosing and analyze the choices the creator made for the intended user/audience. I think it would be so cool though to have students create their own "sonic object" and then they rhetorically analyze each others.
The other activity described was another great idea, in which the teacher had students create a soundscape and soundmap based on the auditory noises going on around the room. This could be really cool to tie into a synthesis unit. One of the biggest struggles I have with that type of writing is getting students to think about how the sources in a synthesis packet "talk to" or "work with" one another. The soundscape lesson could be a really effective way to get students to think about how the various sounds around the room not only have their own individuality, but also come together to create something totally different.

# data[].attributes.body
This article from Composition Studies caught my eye because I incorporated social media into my final project. Amanda May discusses her initial reluctance to join social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, but then she shares the four main insights she gained about them over time. The first insight makes clear that people's interests concerning social media are generational. As time goes on, our students will be more and more likely to fall in the category of being born after social media's birth. So, because of that, we should aim to "gauge interest in and perceptions of social media in the classroom" (135). The second insight was that our students' social media competencies might not always be what we assume. The same goes for other instructors. It is easy to say that we want to incorporate media into the classroom, so let's use Facebook. But not all students and not all staff members are going to come in with the same level of skill with the platform, so understanding our students' skillsets and generational gaps is crucial. Next, May provides the insight that students, even if they are competent in a certain platform, may fail to see how Facebook or Twitter writing, for example, can be implemented in the composition classroom. It may take time to help students see the link between academic writing and social media and how the two can work together. The final insight that May provides is that social media pedagogy needs to be "adaptable" (137). Social media is probably one of the fastest-changing elements of technology with trends moving so quickly, it is hard to keep up. That means that an assignment that worked with Facebook one year, might need to be adapted to Twitter the next, and perhaps Tik Tok after that. This again goes back to understanding the platforms and knowing our students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Access Electronic Resources- Minnesota State University, Mankato