First-year cadets’ conceptions of general education writing at a senior military college
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.6Keywords:
general education, cadets, Army writing, mixed methods, first-year compositionAbstract
This study investigates conceptions first-year cadets at a U.S. senior military college bring to general education writing courses, often termed first-year composition (FYC). Using a mixed methods research design, we surveyed over 700 cadets and conducted semi-structured in-person interviews with four first-year cadets. Our data suggest cadets stress orality, credibility, and clarity when writing for FYC. These conceptions are largely influenced by the cadet’s interest and immersion in the Army yet are also strongly influenced by their brief introduction to college-level writing within their required FYC class. We conclude by arguing for two specific avenues of future research into gleaning students’ conceptions of courses, specifically arguing for exploring how conceptions all students bring to the classroom impact important moments of transfer and engaging all students and students’ conceptions in course design.
References
Anson, C., & S. Neely. (2010). The Army and the academy as textual communities: Exploring mismatches in the concepts of attribution, appropriation, and shared goals. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 14(3). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.3/topoi/anson-neely/
Arum, R., & J. Roksa. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2008). High-impact educational practices. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips
Beaufort, A. (2007): College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement. (2013). Grand Institutional Report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Berlin, J. A. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bizzell, P. (2014). We want to know who our students are. PMLA, 129(3), 442-447.
Chick, N. (2014). ‘Methodologically sound’ under the ‘big tent’: An ongoing conversation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol8/iss2/1/
Chick, N. (2013). Difference, power, and privilege in the scholarship of teaching and learning: The Value of humanities SoTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.), The Scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 15-33.
Connors, R.J. (1997). Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory, and pedagogy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2014). WPA outcomes statement for first-year Composition (v3.0). Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crowley, S. (1998). Composition in the university: Historical and polemical essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Delpish, A., Darby, A., Holmes, A., Knight-McKenna, M., Mihans, R., King., & Felten, P. (2010). Equalizing voices: Student-faculty partnerships in course design. In C. Werder & M.M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voice in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 96-115). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Department of the Army. (2012). Army Leadership. Washington, D.C.
Driscoll, D.L. (2014). Clashing values: A longitudinal, exploratory study of student beliefs about general education, vocationalism, and transfer of learning. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 2(1), 21-37.
Downs, D. (2013). What is FYC? In R. Malenczyk (Ed.), A rhetoric of writing program administrators (pp. 50-63). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Harris, J. (2012). A teaching subject: Composition since 1966. New Edition. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Huntington, S. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hutchings, P. (2000). Introduction. Opening lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R.M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a large National telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125-148.
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759-779.
Lave, J., & E. Wenger. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moghtader, M., Cotch, A., & Hague, K. (2001). The first-year composition requirement revisited: A survey. College Composition and Communication, 52.3, 455-461.
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Poole, G. (2013). Square one: What is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.), SoTL in & across the disciplines (pp. 136-151). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Russell, D. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990: A curricular history. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sipe, L.R., & Ghiso, M.P. (2004). Developing conceptual categories in classroom descriptive research: Some problems and possibilities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(4), 472-85.
Wardle, E. (2009). ‘Mutt genres’ and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765-789.
Wardle, E. & Downs, D. (2012). Reimaging the nature of FYC: Trends in writing-about-writing pedagogies. In K. Ritter & P.K. Matsuda (Eds.), Exploring composition studies (pp. 123-145). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Wilds, N.G. (1989). Writing in the military: A different mission. In C.B. Matalene (Ed.) Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in discourse communities of work (pp. 188-200). New York: Random House.
Yancey, K., Robertson, L., & Taczak, K. (2014). Writing across contexts: Transfer, composition, and sites of writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 James Michael Rifenburg, Brian G Forester
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
