Paper #6: Becoming a Scholar of Basic Writing


When I started this semester, I thought I would dabble in learning about the major debates of basic writing. I didn’t think I would be exploring a potential dissertation topic. You see, I was convinced that I would not be studying basic writing much during my degree. In fact, I saw a bit of myself when we read Yagelski: “Many English professors did not want their professional identities to be defined by what was widely considered a skills-based course whose purpose was to enable students to write well enough to do the ‘real’ work of college study” (282). My worry wasn’t about having my identity defined by a discipline that is considered less than; I was and am concerned about aligning with a discipline that could be potentially phased out in the future.

Then again, basic writing has been on the chopping block for decades. It is always changing, adapting, fighting for space and respect. If everyone veers away from it as a potential research focus, then how can it be expected to flourish? I began my studies, hoping to join the ranks of community college professors who research because they want to. In writing Paper #5 and standing up for #actualCCprofs, I realized I probably need a secondary hashtag: #actualBWprof. There are others out there doing this work, but if I don’t join them in a visible way, I’d be a hypocrite. So, here I am, beginning the research I said I would do someday but not now. My whole career seems to have worked this way: I pursued coursework in rhet/comp while earning my master’s in literature because I knew I’d probably teach writing too, only to end up predominantly teaching basic writing and first year composition with a side of literature. I’m not alone in stumbling into a career of teaching basic writing. I’m a little surprised it has taken me this long to realize I am fighting myself about something I should probably give into.

Most of my professional and faculty development has come from conference attendance and passive participation in community list-servs. When I think of the major debates in basic writing, I think of the current issue of placement, and what the discipline will do now that Compass is being discontinued as a placement test. Alongside that is the issue of direct placement and whether it is a viable option for community colleges. I think, too, of the debates about acceleration models like ASU’s Stretch and CCBC’s Accelerated Learning Program and how these models attempt to move students more quickly through their preparatory classes and more directly into their credit-bearing courses. These are the hot topics on the Council of Basic Writing list-serv and the topics of many recent conference presentations. Then, there is the old standby of pedagogical concerns like which genres are appropriate for basic writers and which lexile difficulty level they should be reading for the course. These discussions seem to be never-ending, with scholars cycling through different ideas about what is most appropriate.

The issue that is of most interest to me is not a major debate at all but rather a secondary or tertiary debate. Many schools have worked to advocate for better technology in the classrooms, but I see less attention paid to precisely what should be accomplished with the classroom technology when it pertains to basic writers. It seems that the first year composition world is moving full-steam ahead into multimodality while much less is being written about basic writing and composing with technology.


There is much that I need to read. To truly become a scholar of basic writing, I will need to immerse myself in classic works that are frequently referenced: Shaughessy, Bartholomae, Rose, Bizzell, Horner and Lu, and Soliday. At the top of my reading pile for the break in between classes is Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level by Marilyn Sternglass. Because of my research interests, the same pile includes: Race, Rhetoric, and Technology by Adam Banks, The Way Literacy Lives by Shannon Carter, Going Wireless: A Critical Exploration of Wireless and Mobile Technologies for Composition Teachers and Researchers by Amy C. Kimme Hea. Only Sternglass and Carter are texts about basic writers, but I hope to extrapolate from the other two to apply what is said about technology to my subfield.

In 2011, Mike Rose noted the problem of both disciplinary and methodological silos in research about basic writers. Higher education journals are not drawing from the work done in Journal of Basic Writing, nor is JBW drawing from more scientific research methodologies:“But if we hope to really do something transformational with remediation, we’ll need to use all the wisdom we can garner, from multiple disciplines and multiple methodologies, from multiple lines of sight” (Rose 29). I will need to leave my silo to visit other silos; in particular, I will need to go beyond the Council of Basic Writing at CCCCs to also attend the National Association of Developmental Educators conferences and take advantage of the research coming out of that realm. I already consider myself part of the TYCA Midwest community as well as on the fringes of Computers & Writing.  I intend to draw from these “multiple lines of sight” in my work. I hope to do the same in what I read as well.

Practitioners of basic writing are generally an inclusive group; it’s part of what we do. We take everyone into our classes. We take all instructors in the field into our fold too. I would like to be inclusive in my citations, particularly ensuring I recognize the scholarship of fellow community college professors in my work. If I, as an #actualCCprof, do not recognize them in my work, then how can I expect others to? This reminds me of something Cheryl Ball said in her Computers & Writing keynote presentation in 2015 when announcing Vega:

How does a field share its knowledge internally AND externally so that socialization of its scholarly values transcends its own disciplinary boundaries? C&W is a multitudinous discipline of computers and composition, multimodal comp, digital rhetoric, digital media composition, networked writing, code studies scholars, digital pedagogy, etc. Whatever you want to call yourself, if you’re here, you’re part of this community. Even if you’re not here, and you cite the long history from this community, you’re part of this community.

I’ve been in the basic writing community in one way or another ever since I began teaching basic writing what feels like a lifetime ago (in 2002!). I would like to more visibly join the community via participation in scholarship. The first step is to be a consumer of it. The next step is to join the conversation. I feel like I have been a rather casual consumer of it so far but will now rely on the accountability of being in a research program to buckle down and read more judiciously. Likewise, I will attempt to be a less passive and more visible participant in the basic writing research community. I have one collaborative project in the pipeline with Lynn Reid. I also have data that I presented at Computers & Writing in May that I could use for an article in JBW or the Basic Writing e-Journal.


During conference attendance over the past nine years or so, I have run into several basic writing colleagues who share my overlapping interest in basic writing and computers and writing. One of these colleagues, Lynn Reid, writes, “Despite the paucity of published scholarship that directly addresses multimodal composing in basic writing, online forums, email lists, conference presentations, and corridor conversations with colleagues make clear to me that basic writing faculty are, without question, employing a wide range of digital pedagogies in their courses.”

Like Reid, I am convinced that many more basic writing instructors are using computers in their classes and, one would hope, using them as more than a glorified typewriter. And yet, I am also convinced that there is a disparity between the functional and technological literacy as well as access to technology for some basic writing students. What I would like to know is what this disparity looks like and to what extent it is widening an already extant gap between the students who are the furthest behind and the students who entered college already prepared.

I also see many assumptions being published about what basic writers are likely (or unlikely) to be able to do on a computer, with the information about the students conveniently suiting the pedagogical slant of the authors (Moran 212). In 1991, Hawisher and Selfe noted, “What many in our profession have yet to realize is that electronic technology, unless it is considered carefully and used critically, can and will support any one of a number of negative pedagogical approaches that also grow out of our cultural values and our theories of writing” (56).  I would hope that almost 25 years later, we now appreciate the ways that technology can both hurt and harm our pedagogy, but I also question some of the practices that continue to be used in spite of research against them.

I think it is fairly safe to say that in the field of basic writing, we also realize,“The focus of postmodern theory on the contingency of knowledge making, the instability of the subject, and the connections between power and discourse has in a sense forced English educators to confront their complicity in the process by which schools, as social institutions, can contribute to injustice and marginalization” (Yagelski 304). In some ways, some of the resistance to using technology in the classroom comes from very kind motives not to leave any student behind:“Access to the Web is difficult at some institutions and for some students. Moreover, students enter our classes with different degrees of facility and experience with computers and with the Web, and we are rightly hesitant to penalize inadvertently those students already part of the ‘technological underclass’” (Sorapure, Inglesby, Yatchisin 335). At the same time, we as a field are inadequately preparing writing students for their first year composition classes if we ignore technology use or only use it in superficial ways if students will be expected to magically change into technologically-adept writers the moment they step into a first year composition classroom. There has to be a comfortable middle ground between technological use that is so advanced that it fatally discourages or discludes the student without access and use of a computer that is little more than typing a paper.

In an article about basic writing methodologies, DeGenaro and White noted the one and only issue that BW scholars have been able to agree upon in recent decades is that formal grammar instruction does not work as a method of teaching basic writing. And yet, publishers continue to shill products that contain skill and drill activities for basic writers to complete in order to improve their overall writing aptitude. I cannot say for sure how many teachers use these products as part of their coursework, but the practice exists. Likewise, some instructors delay exposure to methods and strategies beyond use of Microsoft Word for revision because they conflate basic writers’ ability to use technology with their ability to write fluently with ease.

In any discussion of basic writers, we must remember that they are not a homogenous group. One school’s set of basic writers can have very different demographics than another’s. In some schools, ESL students make up a majority of the students in a basic writing program while that same population can be almost invisible at another school. Many journal articles focus on the unique contexts of their school’s program to narrowly discuss results of an experiment or focus group. What I would like to do is examine the same issue closely in several different learning environments. Charles Moran writes, “…for if we are to do fully-useful scholarship, we need to include in our field of study the material context in which students and teachers work with new technologies” (207). It is my supposition that many who consume basic writing scholarship often discount it if the context does not resemble their own. In exploring an issue from multiple contexts, I would hope to better represent the many variables in play across the nation in basic writing programs. To say that basic writers are universally able or unable to access particular technology isn’t possible, but to explore the impact of the variables on the types of access has fascinating potential.

Hawisher and Selfe warn, “Along with becoming acquainted with current composition theory, instructors, for example, must learn to recognize that the use of technology can exacerbate problems characteristic of American classrooms and must continue to seek ways of using technology that equitably support all students in writing classes” (55). The current definition of all students has since expanded to not only include students of all ethnicities, socioeconomic levels, and linguistic capabilities, but now all levels of ability. The percentage of students who require accommodations is higher in a developmental course than in a traditional first year composition class. When we as a field introduce new technological strategies into the classroom, we will not only need to think of functional access and technoliteracy but also universal access for students of all (dis)abilities. This is yet another variable I would like to study but one I am less confident about exploring. As a teacher of basic writing, I have been disappointed each time an outsider has written about my context based on narrow anecdotal evidence. Given the wide spectrum of accommodations needed by students in our classes, I don’t know how I could address every potential situation, and yet I do not want to pick and choose which are convenient or observable for me and hypothesize based on similar anecdotal experience. I don’t want for this population to be ignored in my research about access, though.

One of the factors I will need to consider is which methodologies I will utilize. As I said in Paper #4, I have noticed that narrative evidence is in favor in the articles in JBW. I fully recognize that the stories of our classes are the reasons we research and write, and I believe they have a place within the research. But I want more than narrative. As McComiskey said, “No single methodology from linguistics or discourse analysis or creative writing or rhetoric or composition or literature or literary criticism or critical theory or cultural studies or English education– no single methodology (or set of specialized methodologies) can solve a complex social problem” (32). The culture of my subdiscipline will not require acquisition of new research skills, but the problem I am trying to address demands it. Supposition and theory will not cut it, nor will small focus groups or narrative about individual students. I need data too. In order to put the data to use, though, I will need to draw from my professional knowledge to apply the data properly. As Rose said,

Most higher education policy research on remediation does not include historical analysis of the beliefs about cognition and instruction that inform curriculums. In fact, there’s not a lot of close analysis of what goes on in classrooms, the cognitive give-and-take of instruction and what students make of it. And I’m not aware of any policy research crafted with the aid of people who actually teach those classes. Finally, we don’t get much of a sense of the texture of students’ lives, the terrible economic instability of some of them, but even less of a sense of the power of learning new things and, through that learning, redefining who you are. Profiles of students in remedial classes, when we do get them, are too often profiles of failure rather than of people with dynamic mental lives. (29)

This is a significant part of why I advocate for #actualCCprof status in research writing. If the research is going to be about community college basic writing students, then the context of the classroom and the students’ lives needs to be interpreted by the professors on the front lines. Progressively, basic writing classes are being discontinued at universities, so this research would/could/should fall to the community college professors to perform and analyze. I cannot guarantee that the profiles will all be of successes rather than failures, but the dynamics of students’ lives should be an anchoring part of the research about access. As the students are redefining who they are and what they believe about writing, I think the story about their access should also be reshaped and redefined with information collected specifically about basic writers and their contexts. Too often, I have seen the Pew Research Center data about college students’ technology use and comfort applied to the basic writing classroom, a classroom that is not usually the same demographical constitution as the typical entering freshman class.

In her 2004 article about basic writing students in online courses, Linda Stine writes, “Basic writing students, typically older, poorer, less apt to come from stable, highly educated families, and more apt to have learning disabilities, are still less likely than the average student to have easy access to the kind of technology that distance learning requires, both in and out of the classroom” (390). I would like to explore what types of access they generally have now and the extent to which mobile devices could bridge that gap. It is my theory that basic writing pedagogy needs to adapt to the access students have and can use comfortably. It is also my hypothesis that our students are largely more comfortable using mobile phone tech than traditional college classroom PCs, although this will not be true of all of our returning adult students. This thread of study may also require information collection about teaching demographics.

I hesitate to make generalizations here, so I will focus on what I have observed from my time as my department’s Computer-Aided Instruction Coordinator. When I would order replacement machines for the computer lab, I had to use approved vendors and choose software that was adopted by the entire institution. My school happens to be a Dell and Microsoft school. While some faculty members utilize laptops and tablets for their course preparation, the vast majority of them use PCs or Macs for their writing, grading, etc. I propose that many of our anecdotes about student ability are stories of contact zones where students who are more accustomed to laptops and mobile devices are experiencing moments of discomfort (or lack of transfer) when using unfamiliar operating systems or programs on the PC. The student population in basic writing is usually placed in basic writing because of these issues of transfer with their writing skills. Is it too far of a leap to suggest that they have technology skills but need to be explicitly shown and probably even reshown how to do some specific skills on the computer rather than have the ability to use the technology completely discounted and delayed? I have watched as the same instructors who complain about how their students cannot use the computer try to use a Dell all-in-one computer. The moment of “Where’s the CPU? Where is the on button?” in those instructors is quite similar to when a student who is used to OpenOffice is asked to go to Microsoft Word; the question makes the user look like they have never seen a computer before when the user hasn’t seen a computer exactly like this before.

When I gave a report about my data to our Outcomes Assessment group on campus, I included information that suggested that students were not particularly computer-inept, but they were not necessarily familiar with Microsoft products as many more shifted to low-cost laptops as their devices of choice. The Outcomes Assessment Coordinator later told me that this was an “aha moment” for the math department, as they had recently given a Microsoft-based assessment to be completed off-campus and received very poor returns when the same assessment worked well on-campus just a few years ago. They could not understand why students would be unable to do it now, until I showed them that not all students have equal access to costly Microsoft programs at home. Admittedly, this is a very local and specific example of the type of result that could come from exploratory research about students and their technoliteracy contexts, but the impact for pedagogy is great. These issues of functional access and technoliteracy have real pedagogical consequences. This praxis is what interests me most. Fortunately, I think the basic writing audience is interested in matters of praxis as well.

As I continue in this thread of research, it is my hope that the data can cross over to all of first year composition as well, since basic writers are being prepped for the work in first year composition, and the technology use should overlap. I cannot say for sure where the research will lead until I collect and analyze data. It is my hope that I can expand my project with the assistance of many others across the nation to implement data collection that is representative of many types of basic writing programs.

Works Cited

Ball, Cheryl E. “The Future of Scholarly Publishing, or How C&W Rules the World!” Keynote presentation at Computers & Writing, University of Wisconsin-Stout, WI. 2015, May 28.

DeGenaro, William and Edward M. White. “Going around in Circles: Methodological Issues in Basic Writing Research” Journal of Basic Writing 19.1 (2000): 22-34. ERIC. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

Hawisher, Gail E. and Cynthia L. Selfe. “The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class” College Composition and Communication 42.1 (1991): 55-65. Print.

McComiskey, Bruce. Introduction. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Urbana, IL:NCTE, 2006. 1-65. Print.

Moran, Charles. “Access: The A-Word in Technology Studies.” Passions, Pedagogies and 21st Century Technologies. Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1999. 205-220. Print.

Reid, Lynn. “The Politics of ReMEDIAtion.” Strategic Discourse: The Politics of (New) Literacy Crises. Ed. Lynn Lewis. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press, 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2015.

Rose, Mike. “Remediation at a Crossroads.” Teaching Developmental Writing. 4th ed. Ed. Susan Naomi Bernstein. Boston: Bedford, 2013. 27-30. Print.

Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, George Yatchisin. “Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium.” Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, Elizabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2008. 333-349. Print.

Stine, Linda. “The Best of Both Worlds: Teaching Basic Writers in Class and Online.” Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, Elizabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2008. 389-403. Print.

Yagelski, Robert P. “English Education.” English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). Ed. Bruce McComiskey. Urbana, IL:NCTE, 2006. 275-319. Print.


Paper 4: Methodologies and Basic Writing

In researching Basic Writing and issues related to access to technology, I’ve run into a couple of methodologies. Most fall under a similar category. They stipulate the issue with a literature review and then further discuss the issue with classroom anecdotes. The anecdotal evidence may take the form of a case study wherein a few students are provided as objects of study. It may also draw from the experience of one course with student work called upon as evidence. The anecdotes or descriptions are narrative in nature. Other pieces are less pragmatic and more thought-pieces that cover a literature review, stipulate the problem, and then call for change or action.

The Journal of Basic Writing is the main publication for Basic Writing scholarship. Submission guidelines do not mention preference for methodology: Then again, other journals in Composition Studies (CCC   and Computers and Composition) do not forbid any methodologies, though they do at least list empirical research as an option, unlike JBW. The preponderance of narrative articles does not appear to be a goal of the journal’s but rather something that happens. I wonder if the bulk of submissions are in this style. The articles I have located about technology in JBW seem to rely heavily on those methods with little quantitative research used.

When I interviewed Dr. Kevin DePew about methods used in BW research, he indicated he was not surprised by a reliance on narrative. He speculated that this may be a result of how the people hired to teach BW often come from a variety of disciplines that may value narrative. Furthermore, their own teaching experience may be “trial by fire” which then also lends itself to a narrative tradition in the articles (DePew).

In regard to credibility, I do wonder that BW scholarship is not often cited by other subdisciplines, in much the way that education scholarship is rarely cited by composition studies. Some of the blame for this, though, may be because the journals live in different databases than the journals in use by comp studies scholars. While JSTOR is the go-to database for my fellow students, I have to troll through ERIC for JBW articles. An additional concern I have is that there are plenty of online journals but they are not housed in the academic databases even though they too are peer-reviewed. There is a plethora of work being done; one wonders if it is less referenced because one has to know to look for it.

At this point, my only benchmark for how authoritative or accepted the BW methods are comes from how they are cited within BW because these articles do not appear to be cross-referenced in fields outside of BW. Again, I am unsure of whether this is because of the database issue or a lack of respect for methodologies used.

As referred to in some of my earlier papers, DeGenaro and White argue: “Instead of moving toward a consensus, our researchers too often talk past each other, positions are reiterated rather than reconsidered, and we move in circles” (23). It feels like BW scholars would rather redefine an issue or reframe it in the context of their own institution or classroom context and then draw their own conclusion based on teaching experience rather than use the work that has been done in other contexts to extrapolate to their own. I see this happening at conferences too where someone’s idea will be invalidated by a comment: “Well, that won’t work for my students.”

It may feel as though I have drifted from the main questions for this paper, but for me, all of this is part of the question of methodology. If I am not 100% comfortable with the methodological choices of my discipline, must I hold rigidly to them? I distrust the trend of hypothesizing significant change based on the anecdotal evidence of one person’s classroom experience.

In previous think-pieces, scholars have observed that socioeconomic status affects access to and comfort using technology. They’ve also observed that students in Basic Writing are often the most disenfranchised. To my knowledge, no one has studied the extent to which this disadvantage exists and to what extent it impacts their writing ability. In my own classroom, I vacillate between not wanting to contribute to additional barriers to student learning and also not creating a new barrier to their success in FYC by perpetuating the digital divide in BW too.

In 2013 and 2014, I surveyed the writing classes at my institution in order to ascertain student access to technology outside of the classroom and their comfort using it. Classes were scientifically sampled for representation from all four of our campuses, as well as all four levels of our writing classes (two BW levels and two FYC levels), and the times of day for the classes. We eventually surveyed our online courses as well. The survey was given in the first four weeks of the semester and again in the last four weeks of the semester. The same questions were asked in both the pre and post surveys with the addition of a question in the post survey: Did their access to technology change during the semester and, if so, did it improve or worsen.

My preliminary findings are many. The short version is that our students who do not have easy access to the internet when off campus often find ways to achieve better access during the semester when it is a requirement of the course or there is a felt need. We still have a small percentage of students who do not have any access to the internet at all when not at school. The previous assumption was that students who did not have easy access to the internet for their assignments would get too frustrated finding time to complete their assignments on campus and would withdraw from their courses. We still have students who withdraw from all levels of writing classes, but access to technology does not seem to be a major contributing factor to their persistence. The meeting time for the course did not have a significant impact on their answers. Which campus they attended did. The three campuses that are around the same socioeconomic level ($60,000-$80,000 for average annual income) all reported easier access to the internet and computers than our lowest socioeconomic level campus, where results were dismal.

Data from all four levels of writing classes at SWIC, representative sampling.
Data from all four levels of writing classes at SWIC, representative sampling.


I also have data for students’ comfort levels with a variety of tasks from remembering multiple usernames and passwords to typing their papers to creating and uploading video files. These can all be cross-referenced with the different campuses and different course levels.

Essentially, I would like to do something with this information that I have, even running the surveys again in a year or two to see how the numbers have changed as students rely more heavily on their mobile devices. I would also love to run the survey at other local schools to see how the numbers change when at a public university with a strong commuter population compared to a private university with a larger percentage of residential students.

The dilemma I am having is: will this type of research be accepted and welcomed in the BW or composition journals? Or is this type of research merely rarely done in our fields because we are not generally numbers people?

Works Cited

DeGenaro, William and Edward M. White. “Going around in Circles: Methodological Issues in Basic Writing Research” Journal of Basic Writing 19.1 (2000): 22-34. ERIC. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

DePew, Kevin. Personal interview. Skype. 2 Oct. 2015.

Hancock, Nicole. “SWIC Student Access to Technology and Comfort Using It in Class: Survey Results” Outcomes Assessment Breakfast, Southwestern Illinois College, Belleville, IL. 19 Aug. 2015. Keynote Address.

PAB #4: Methodology

Entry 1

DeGenaro, William and Edward M. White. “Going around in Circles: Methodological Issues in Basic Writing Research” Journal of Basic Writing 19.1 (2000): 22-34. ERIC. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

Keywords: methodology, basic writing, practitioner results, data, consensus

The premise of this article is that Basic Writing practitioners need to be more cohesive with their methodologies and present more of a united front as a subdiscipline. The one issue that BW scholars have been able to agree upon in recent decades is that formal grammar instruction does not work as a method of teaching Basic Writing. In the history of the discipline, much scholarship was written about this using a variety of methods. “But it is hard to come up with other examples of professional consensus on matters in Basic Writing, since the researchers in the field do not seem to listen much to each other or build on each others’ findings”(23). In fact, the situation is worse than a lack of consensus, which might suggest open debate. The debate occurs, but who is listening? DeGenaro and White argue: “Instead of moving toward a consensus, our researchers too often talk past each other, positions are reiterated rather than reconsidered, and we move in circles” (23).


DeGenaro and White use the more recent mainstreaming debate as the subject through which to study BW methodology. The difference between BW as a subdiscipline compared to others is how we must face our battles publically as we have to argue for or against certain measures that other entities propose (26). Basic Writing often needs to fight against outside forces to rally for continuance as a discipline within a school, so sometimes scholarship is focused on an immediate exigency with a non-BW audience. Other times, the writing is directed to other BW scholars, but again, who is listening?


The authors use the Crowley New Abolitionists debate to show that although someone will call for data, when data is presented, it is largely ignored. “To ignore data that contradicts one’s doctrines seems short-sighted. But we can only say this if we trust and value evidence provided by an experimental methodology” (26). This happens when one values philosophical inquiry over data (26-27). White refers to his own experimental research (survey results) that was used during this debate only to be openly and overtly ignored by Crowley.


Another method that is used more frequently in BW is practitioner results. Scholars include their own direct experiences and classroom anecdotes as evidence (28). The authors recognize that this methodology is rooted in passion for our students; however, it is not unproblematic. “We work in a knowledge-building community that consciously seeks to acknowledge the classroom as a meaningful and scholarly domain, but we risk sacrificing rigor and validity when we fail to interrogate what we mean by ‘evidence’” (28).


Two other types of research personae are the philosopher and the historian. Howard Tinberg is presented as an example of  a philosopher for writing a think-piece that treats student voices as equal with scholars (31). Ira Shor is used as an example of a historian for providing an overview of the issue. Because he ends his piece with a specific call to change in particular ways (rather than a general call to action), he is also labeled a progressive reformer (31-32).



This piece summarizes some of what I have noticed about methodology in the Journal of Basic Writing. There is a dearth of quantitative research for sure. It is disappointing that one of the authors of this piece provided quantitative experimental research only to have it ignored in the mainstreaming debate. I have noticed the same “talking past” in issues related to technology use in the Basic Writing classroom. We’re so far from consensus that we’re almost tackling the issues from such disparate classroom locales that each writer must reiterate his or her position before getting to the issue. By that point, one wonders if readers write off the position as too dissimilar from their own to pay close attention to the issue.


The issue of practitioner research reminds me of experiences I had when working as an instructional aide in a special education program. This was during a time when ADHD was being over-diagnosed. Parents of students with ADHD would often exclaim to the special ed teachers that although they were teaching many students with ADHD, “You don’t know my student with ADHD!” The authors make it clear that practitioners may mean well when they do this, but the end result is that we value our students and our situations over the situations shared in the research. Anecdotes in research are only perceived as significant when it is our students or students who seem similar to ours, but when the anecdote is foreign to our experience, what then?


**Note: in working on this paper, I am developing more questions than answers.



How to pursue meaningful data when the teacher/researchers are sometimes the most over-worked and disenfranchised?

How to do longitudinal studies at the community college level?

What data is effective data?

How to break past the narrative tradition?

(This wasn’t in this reading, but…) How do BW practitioners define a case study? Is that just a way of putting a positive spin on anecdotal experience?

Basic Writing research meme
First world problems Basic Writing meme (self-created on Memegenerator)

Entry 2

Haswell, Richard H. “Quantitative Methods in Composition Studies: An Introduction to Their Functionality” Writing Studies Research in Practice: Methods and Methodologies Ed. Lee Nickoson and Mary P. Sheridan. SIUP: Carbondale, IL, 2012: 185-196. Print.

keywords: methodology, quantitative research, data, research methods

I looked. I tried. I wanted to find something about quantitative data in Basic Writing research. While data exists for programmatic changes like the Stretch Program or Accelerated Learning Program, my searches for anything else recent and quantitative were a bust. In the book chapter I have selected, Richard Haswell explains that on the WPA listserv, there are frequent calls for data but a “paucity of replies” to such pleas: “It seems the need for quantitative research in the composition field is a crisis in itself” (186).


“My argument is simply that quantitative data gathering and data analysis are an everyday way that humans perceive and act; that in research procedures, they involve straightforward and useful functions; and that in outcome, they have benefits that uniquely serve practitioners and researchers” (186-187). It makes me a little bit sad that Haswell has to justify the need for quantitative methods, but he does so because he says some in composition studies are skeptical of data because numbers are the tools of the statistician, not the rhetorician. Not so, says Haswell.


Quantitative data has four functions, as defined by Haswell: insight, transgression, challengeability, persuasion. In insight, data mining can “see” information that cannot be easily gleaned from large amounts of data. Transgression changes “the way teachers and administrators conceive of their field, sometimes debunking myths that have prevailed for decades” (188). Challengeability is presenting enough of the methodology that the information can be confirmed or denied; quantifiable data can be challenged or replicated, unlike other types of evidence. Persuasion is the intentional use of the data to convince the audience of a need for change, etc.; how data (and even what data) is shared influences the perception of that data.


Inherent in this chapter is the call for more scholars to include quantitative data in their research. Haswell includes a list of practical advice for the willing.

–Take courses in statistics and research methods.

–Read quantitative studies with an eye on method.

–Hook up with a savvy researcher.

–Start your own investigation with what you want to know.

–Start small.

–Embrace rigor.



I like numbers. I like facts. I know numbers can be manipulated, but I concur with Haswell that the presence of numbers, tables, and methodologies means the reader has the chance to observe the process of analysis and draw additional conclusions both about the accuracy of the information and its application. The lack of quantitative research in composition studies, and particularly Basic Writing, is frustrating. At some point, I want to move beyond assumption and assertion and get down to what is (praxis). One major concern that I have about including quantitative research in my own work in the future is that so little has been published. Does that mean that quantitative research is less likely to be accepted by journals or that too little of it is submitted for publication? As a field, we seem to recognize the value of it when appealing to administration but not as much when writing to one another. Is that because the numbers and charts are outside of our usual comfort zones?


I’d like to take up the call to do this sort of research, but I need to do Haswell’s first step before I can begin: take courses in statistics and research methods.