Writing about Writing

Composition is not widely recognized as its own discipline. Composition instructors strive to teach students how to become better writers. As public perception often shapes public policy, this uninformed view of composition as a legitimate field of study has contributed to a lack of funding and emphasis on composition classes in academia.[3]

In "Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions," Downs and Wardle discuss several benefits they found WAW affords students including:[4]

• an increased self-awareness about writing
• improved reading abilities
• improved confidence as a student
• raised awareness of research writing as conversation

WAW asks students to read about writing and various processes, which allows them to identify what works for them. By reading articles that a composition studies student might read, the first-year composition student is able to gain further insight into the ongoing conversation centered around writing. In her article "Writing about Writing in Basic Writing," Shannon Carter explains "a writing-about-writing approach foregrounds research in writing and related studies by asking students to read and discuss key research in the discipline and contribute to the scholarly conversation themselves."[3] She explains that having students immerse themselves in this type of scholarship will not only improve their writing but their understanding of writing as an academic discipline will increase as well, which in turn contributes to changing the public perception that writing is only something that is a piece of other disciplines.

Many instructors who use WAW are also benefited in that they themselves are able to learn more about composition studies along with their class, promoting parallel learning. In an article titled "Seeing is Believing: Writing Studies with 'Basic Writing' Students," Charlton reports that some see value in teaching first-year composition from a cultural studies approach because not only does this allow for composition instructors to teach what they love, but the types of reading promote critical thinking and analysis—two goals many first-year composition courses have. Also, the article reports on several instructors incorporating graduate level writing-studies readings into their first-year writing courses with much success. Charlton writes, "Students were engaged and were developing research questions and projects that rivaled my on senior-level composition theory class, both in terms of complexity and overall quality of finished products."[6]

As WAW is a relatively recent movement and is still in its early stages of development, proponents don't always agree on how WAW should be applied to the classroom. Carter points out instructors only account for a small portion of the composition community, and therefore disagreement is common and "often in fundamental ways."[3]

In his response to Downs and Wardle's "Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions," Joshua P. Kutney argues that providing students with an awareness of writing through WAW won't necessarily transfer to their writing performance. He compares WAW to students who take courses that raise their awareness of social problems. While students gain a greater sense of these issues through these courses, rarely do they display behavioral changes in regards to these issues.

Kutney also argues that an increased awareness of writing studies may result in students becoming more comfortable with validating their insufficiencies as a writer because they now recognize the difficulties expert writers have, and not because they now comprehend "the nuances of the composing process." He goes on to say that while Downs and Wardle discuss WAW as allowing students to see academic writing as engaging in an ongoing conversation, this knowledge might overwhelm the student and cause them to avoid engaging in the conversation altogether. Kutney writes, "While First-Year Composition may not do much to develop the writing abilities of students, Downs and Wardle offer no reason to think that Introduction to Writing Studies, a course that does not purport to teach writing, will do more."[7]

In their response to Downs and Wardle, Miles et al. claim a WAW approach seems like it serves as an introduction to a writing major, which would not be beneficial to first-year students. They take issue with Downs and Wardle's "dismissal of the importance of teaching situated procedural knowledge",[8] most notably the rhetorical situation. Miles et al. claim the only rhetorical situation a WAW course exposes its students to is that of scholarly research. They also argue that Downs and Wardle put too much emphasis on first-year composition within the field of writing studies, seeing it as the predominant branch of the field. They also argue that Downs and Wardle fail to give voice to the students in their case study who didn't benefit from the WAW approach and that only those who did are highlighted. Another main criticism they have is WAW's reliance on one modality of research writing while they argue that their "research and scholarship is an interesting hybrid of several modalities at once."[8]

Downs published a response to Miles et al. in which he expresses displeasure at the arguments the authors laid out:

My first reaction to Miles et al.'s response to "FYC as Intro to Writing Studies" is about as magnanimous as their response itself – that is, not remotely. This disappoints me, because I do maintain the ideal of scholarship wherein a constructive dialectic stretches, shapes, and builds ideas rather than merely tearing them down. I confess my first instinct is to tear down Miles et al.'s response as they attempt to tear down the construct we forwarded. (Earning the condemnation of an entire department is bracing-and ironic when the scholarship of some of the signatories – for me, Schwegler and Shamoon – planted seeds of ideas they find unworkable.[9]

He writes Miles et al. "seem to address us as if we are sitting at the kids' table at Thanksgiving dinner." His main contentions are:[9]

• Miles et al. seem only to respond to arguments Downs and Wardle didn't make rather than focusing on the ones they did.
• There is a major difference between the type of course he and Wardle advocate from first-year writing and a course that serves as in introduction to a writing major.
• Miles et al. grossly misinterpreted the types of readings that are purposed to be involved in WAW, as they are not all of an academic nature and nowhere in Downs' and Wardle's article do they say that it is.
• In regards to the criticism that first-year writing students will have a difficult time comprehending readings that are also taught to graduate students, Downs states that it's an "admirable goal" of writing programs to support this kind of learning, and cutting first-year students off from this type of learning is "unnecessarily limiting."

He concludes by writing "I am grateful not only for the opportunity to respond, but to have something to respond to. And I wonder how differently our students might understand writing if they had similar opportunities."[9]

A response to Downs' response to Miles et al. by Slomp and Sargent doesn't reject Downs and Wardle's ideas in the same way Miles et al. does, but calls for more research on the WAW method. The authors also argue that Downs and Wardle fail to position themselves into an ongoing conversation in the same way they advocate for in WAW. Slomp and Sargent say that Downs and Wardle paint themselves to be "lone pioneers" in this venture, but in the 1990s Wendy Bishop supported the use of writing as the main subject in the writing classroom. They also reference Peter Elbow as being someone who touched on similar ideas to WAW long before Downs and Wardle published "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions."[10]

Shannon Carter, while a proponent of WAW, describes how it isn't always accessible to other instructors or policy makers. She describes how WAW can be "off-putting" to others, and the scholarship on the subject cannot be relied on in making changes to composition curriculum. She explains that while WAW can be effective for some, it is simply one way to approach teaching composition and won't work with everyone's teaching style.[3]

As previously mentioned, many believe that because the readings are written by professionals for professionals, undergraduates will not be able to easily understand the concepts, which will negatively affect engagement with the course. Some even question Downs and Wardle's motives, and see WAW as a ploy in "recruiting" more students to become majors in the field.[6]

Published in 2011, Downs and Wardle's book is described as "encouraging students to draw on what they know in order to contribute to ongoing conversations about writing and literacy."[11] In the preface for the instructors, Downs and Wardle describes their frustration with composition courses that are based around themes that have nothing to do with writing. They list several reasons as to why WAW is a "smart choice" in terms of an approach to teaching first-year composition:[12]

• WAW engages students in a relevant subject
• WAW engages students' own area of expertise
• WAW helps students transfer what they learn
• WAW has been extensively class tested—and it works.

The book addresses several questions geared towards helping the student understand multiple components of writing: Why study writing? How do readers read and writers write? How do you write? How have you become the readers and writer you are today? How do communities shape writing? How do you make yourself heard as college writer? A mixture of selected readings from both scholars, authors, and students are provided, as well as various activities and discussion questions associated with the readings.[12]

• WritingAboutWriting.net: A website maintained by the Writing About Writing standing group of CCCC, with resources such as syllabi, assignments, and reflective blog posts on using WAW pedagogy.
• Write On: Notes on Teaching Writing about Writing: Wardle and Downs' blog on WAW
• Writers on Writing Blog: affiliation of a podcast by the same name hosted by Barbara DeMarco-Barrett
• Information about New York Times Online' column "Writers on Writing
• Writing about Writing: An Extended Metaphor Assignment
• Article Writing Blog: How To Write an Article