Rhetoric Across the Disciplines

RHETORIC ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES:

DEFINITIONS, PERCEPTIONS, AND EXPECTATIONS OF FACULTY WITHIN AND

BEYOND RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION

A Project

Presented to the faculty of the Department of English

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

English

(Composition)

Dakota Joseph Lenz

SPRING 2018

Dakota Joseph Lenz

RHETORIC ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES:

DEFINITIONS, PERCEPTIONS, AND EXPECTATIONS OF FACULTY WITHIN AND

BEYOND RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION

A Project

Dakota Joseph Lenz

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Hogan Hayes, Ph.D.

______, Second Reader Tialitha Macklin, Ph.D.

______Date

iii

Student: Dakota Joseph Lenz

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Doug Rice, Ph.D. Date

Department of English

Abstract

RHETORIC ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES:

DEFINITIONS, PERCEPTIONS, AND EXPECTATIONS OF FACULTY WITHIN AND

BEYOND RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION

Dakota Joseph Lenz

In the spring of the 2018 academic year, I examined what connections existed between composition instructors and disciplinary instructors at California State University, Sacramento

(CSUS) regarding definitions, perceptions, and expectations of rhetoric, as well as willingness to engage in interdisciplinary efforts to teach rhetoric. I collected data via anonymous survey from faculty teaching composition courses and through semi-structured interviews with three disciplinary faculty, one each from the departments of communication studies, sociology, and civil engineering. I discovered that both composition and disciplinary faculty perceive audience awareness and genre awareness, which this study summarizes as rhetorical adaptability, to be the most important aspects of rhetoric for students to understand; however, disciplinary faculty have little confidence students will demonstrate rhetorical adaptability when entering their classrooms. In addition, the use of the term rhetoric and related terminology varied greatly, even among composition faculty. Almost all faculty were willing to engage in interdisciplinary efforts to improve the overall instruction of rhetoric.

______, Committee Chair Hogan Hayes, Ph.D.

______Date v

DEDICATION

To Joseph and Michele, for building the ship.

To Carol, for providing safe harbor.

To Tialitha, Angela, and Hogan, for keeping the course.

To Orion and Behemoth, for filling the sails with wind.

And most of all, to Jocelynn, who, through storm and sun, keeps the whole voyage afloat.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Dedication ...... vi

List of Tables ...... viii

Chapter

1. COVER ESSAY ...... 1

2. STATEMENT OF TEACHING PHILOSOPHY ...... 5

3. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 10

4. PUBLISHABLE DOCUMENT ...... 31

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Questions ...... 76

Appendix B. Composition Faculty Survey Questions ...... 77

Appendix C. Table 6 – Composition Courses Taught/Teaching ...... 79

Appendix D. Tables 7 & 8 – Definitions ...... 80

Appendix E. Table 9 – Comments on the Importance of Rhetoric ...... 86

Appendix F. Table 10 – Composition Faculty Expectations ...... 90

References ...... 94

vii

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page

1. A Cross Comparison for Defining Rhetoric ...... 35

2. Likert Scale of Perceived Importance of Rhetoric ...... 51

3. Frequency of Most Common Aspects of Rhetoric...... 54

4. Faculty Perspectives on Rhetorical Instruction Beyond the Discipline ...... 57

5. Likelihood of Composition Faculty Working with Disciplinary Faculty ...... 59

6. Composition Courses Taught/Teaching ...... 79

7. Faculty Definitions of Rhetoric ...... 80

8. Breakdown of Faculty Definitions of Rhetoric ...... 82

9. Optional Comments for Importance of Rhetoric ...... 86

10. Composition Faculty Expectations for Rhetorical Knowledge Transfer ...... 90

viii

Chapter 1

COVER ESSAY

This portfolio contains the product of countless hours of study, reflection, library trips, late nights, cups of coffee, discussions (see also: arguments), but most of all, collaboration. Yes, I put the proverbial pen to paper and generated the contents therein, but the ideas, concepts, reflections and new understandings these writings represent come from working with brilliant minds and ambitions. Most of the scholarship to which I reference was unfamiliar to me when entering the graduate program; I knew that I wanted to teach people how to express their ideas through writing, and I had some experience doing so, but to articulate and rationalize the instructional choices I was making, and to find paths for improving this instruction, required several steady hands and a willingness on my part to accept and adapt.

Collaboration and adaptability are reflected immediately in Chapter 2, my teaching portfolio. I begin by describing an alteration to a previous draft. I believed (and still do) strongly in the community classroom. I wanted all students engaging with one another, exploring ideas, challenging positions, and creating knowledge together. But the more classes I had the privilege of teaching, the more I realized that I cannot expect this level of engagement from every class, for whatever reason. So, I learned to adapt. I found new ways of allowing students to engage in written expression and interact with one another. I observed and learned from all students, especially the ones faced with additional challenges, such as being tasked to write complex arguments in a language other than their first, or working with cognitive delays that required varying levels of

accommodation. I continue to work with writing centers, both at the four-year university and two-year college level, because that is where I believe I encounter as diverse a student population with as diverse a set of needs as possible. It is a test of my own agility as an instructor, and I want to keep my senses sharp. My teaching philosophy reflects this personal development, leading the reader to my current approaches to teaching, and the way in which I continue to practice my instructional adaptability.

Chapter 3, the annotated bibliography, represents the areas of scholarship within rhetoric and composition that I have been drawn towards over the course of the graduate program and I use to inform my own praxis. Areas of interest include writing-across-the- curriculum/writing-in-the-disciplines (WAC/WID) programming and pedagogy, theories of transfer, and interdisciplinary writing collaboration. My own studies began outside of the rhetoric and composition and the English department. As an undergraduate, I was an oceanography major, specializing in ocean currents and sea cliff erosion - my backpack was as likely to be filled with sand than essays. This foundation is reflected in the focuses to which I was drawn – scholarship that considers writing beyond the writing classroom.

My belief in classroom community extends to the idea of campus community. I believe that my own writing instruction needs to be informed by knowledge of other disciplinary writing expectations to better serve the large majority students who will leave our discipline and encounter writing contexts more applicable to their majors and careers. I am with these students in the concept of forward thinking: my own teaching methods and assignments are designed to continue to serve the students in their academic and

professional careers – in sum, the scholarship contained in the annotated bibliography looks at who the students can and will become as writers.

The research project that comprises Chapter 4 takes the beliefs of the teaching philosophy, combines the scholarship that has influenced who I am as an educator, and introduces the aspect of writing that I believe is of most benefit for our students within and beyond academia: rhetoric. Rhetoric is everywhere and in everything. Language makes meaning, and rhetoric shapes that meaning. I wanted my project to explore some facet of rhetoric, and with my interests already in disciplinary writing and transfer, I chose to observe why the study and understanding of rhetoric was not transferring to other discourse communities, and to be a part of finding solutions to improve this transfer.

The project idea itself was born from experience as an instructor. When working with juniors and seniors in a writing course, the word rhetoric would inevitably enter the conversation. Each time it did, it was met with the equivalent of a shrug (sometimes literally). Not only did students forget its purpose, they weren’t even aware of its existence. This experience led to discussions, which led to further study, which led to the conclusion that I need to do something on my part to increase the transfer of rhetoric. I want all my students to understand that within even the limited context of academia, the discourse communities they will encounter are endless. If they can be conscious of these communities and understand the means to enter and negotiate within each, it will be empowering in all contexts of life. For me, the pathway to empowerment is through rhetoric.

To the reader of this portfolio, I would say this: I was a reader and a writer who wanted to be a teacher. What I found instead was a community of individuals with which

I could teach. Within this community are scholars, students, teachers, administrators, tutors and more, all working towards common outcomes. This portfolio goes beyond a reflection of my goals and interests, or a measure of my success within the program; it is a reflection of the community of which I am, and hope to continue to be, a part.

Chapter 2

STATEMENT OF TEACHING PHILOSOPHY

Early in my teaching career, a draft of my teaching philosophy began with a simple phrase: “I do not like a quiet classroom.”

This phrase remains mostly accurate. For me, a quiet classroom means that there is little dialogue, questioning, or sharing. A quiet classroom has me standing before unengaged minds and silenced voices. With more teaching experience, I have realized that despite my consistent efforts, some classes never fully develop into the community I strive to create. From these learning experiences, I have amended the original statement:

“I do not prefer a quiet classroom, but I will adapt my teaching to whatever classroom environment I encounter.”

This personal growth has been an opportunity to exercise professional adaptability, an ability that exemplifies my pedagogical philosophy: to prepare and train students to adapt to writing tasks across numerous contexts. To this end, I frame my curriculum within four pedagogical student outcomes that foster an active, engaged, and adaptable classroom: to recognize the value in writing; to become constructive collaborators; to experience empowerment through rhetorical adaptability and; to engage with and effectively utilize new media.

The potential inclusion of any written assignment or text begins with a simple question: Will this be of benefit to my students? If I am unable to form a clear and rational explanation, I will not ask students to do a project or exercise to which I cannot ascribe value. Furthermore, I expect my students to hold me to high standard. Therefore, I

must not only prove the value of the course work, but my own value as an educator. This does not mean I am strictly devoted to proven, canonical texts and classic pedagogical approaches. On the contrary, I maintain a strong belief in the use of mixed, multimodal media and the power of intertextuality. To this purpose, I include the use of television, graphic narrative, film, music, and more to demonstrate textual value in multiple and, sometimes, non-traditional forms, and by doing so, increase course content relatability for diverse student populations.

Once value is earned and established, communicative collaboration can thrive. I want students to understand the dialogical nature of academic discourse, and to value being a part of a larger, constructive conversation. My desire for a communicative classroom motivates me to envision the classroom as a community where students arrive to contribute and leave to share. I believe the most effective approach to make classwork engaging and memorable is the incorporation of as many dynamic, collaborative activities as possible. I recognize that some students may be uncomfortable with verbal contributions, so what I ask of those students is to let their community voice be heard through their writing, particularly in written peer review and feedback. I also incorporate metacognitive activities to encourage the conceptualization of writing a process that includes sharing ideas with other individuals at various stages of the process. Simply put,

I cannot force students to speak; instead, I provide multiple outlets through which students can contribute their voice to the classroom dialogue.

If students can see the value of their writing assignment, and work together towards greater understanding of content, then we can begin to foster rhetorical

awareness and adaptability. Any written work, no matter the quality, can suffer from a poor or inappropriate delivery. To address this, the students will have repeated opportunities to examine conventions of rhetoric, for example an analysis of scientific discourse conventions through Richard Feynman’s article “The Value of Science” paired with rhetorical analysis of an episode of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. I truly believe in a forward-thinking approach to writing instruction, one that introduces and familiarizes students with the written and rhetorical expectations of their future disciplines and careers, facilitating the process of becoming active and contributive voices. Learning rhetorical adaptability remains one of the valuable and transferable abilities that can teach students because it empowers students to control their own narratives as they enter and negotiate with new and unfamiliar writing contexts.

Finally, I believe that the adoption of innovative technologies, and an awareness of increasingly digital academic and professional communities, is a vital part of any student’s social and intellectual growth. During the course, students become actively engaged in these digital spheres through a professional online portfolio they each create and maintain over the course of the semester. This portfolio becomes a showcase for students to demonstrate knowledge of events in their prospective fields of study, analyze discourse conventions and disciplinary trends through interviews with professionals within these fields, and reflect on their own motivations and goals in pursuing their chosen academic and professional path. Students also have the option to include additional and related writings, including scientific explorations, engineering proposals, historical analysis, film reviews, mathematical proofs - anything that is professionally,

academically, publicly acceptable, and encourages a passion for writing. The purpose of this professional portfolio is simple: it is not only a collection of completed writings; it is a foundation for future exploration and writing students will engage with in their academic and professional careers.

Everything we do in my classroom will be related back to the potential and value of becoming an effective writer. If students leave my classroom understanding the value of diverse texts, working constructively and collaboratively with others in their communities, recognizing the value and power of rhetorical adaptability, and understanding how to communicate in emerging forms of communication and media, the community classroom will have fulfilled its purpose.

Throughout my experiences as an instructor, with such diverse experience as conducting oceanography labs, teaching English overseas, and writing franchise manuals for a small business, there is one piece of feedback that remains my favorite. It came from a discussion board post in a supplemental course where students were asked to reflect on the course. One student said that at first, they didn’t want to take the course and weren’t planning on engaging during the semester. However, because of the emphasis on respectful student collaboration and constructive cooperation, this student said that now they looked forward to every class because “it felt being with a family.” Nearly the entire class replied and agreed with the post, as did I. To hear students express sincere joy in the experience of learning in a collaborative environment further encourages my philosophy that a community classroom benefits students in ways beyond their expectations. It motivates me to learn new and more effective manners in which I can adapt learning to

match the needs of the students, thereby helping each student realize that their voice matters, and wants to be heard.

Chapter 3

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler-Kassner, L., Clark, I., Robertson, L. Taczak, K., & Yancey, K.B. (2015).

Assembling knowledge: The role of threshold concepts in facilitating transfer. In

C. M. Anson and J. L. Moore (Eds.) Critical Transitions: Writing and the

Question of Transfer, (pp. 17-47). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/

ansonmoore/chapter1.pdf.

Adler-Kassner et. al (2015) examined how threshold concepts could

facilitate transfer. The researchers identify threshold concepts as a recent but

expanding area of interest in writing and transfer studies and reconceptualized

threshold concepts as transformative portals through which a learner must pass, an

experience that both increases knowledge and understanding. They argued that a

synthesis of recent studies has shown that “working with—writing about, reading

about, and using in practice—threshold concepts of writing is critical for students

seeking to develop as writers” (p. 20).

For their own study, the authors analyzed and synthesized their own

individual studies to produce five threshold concepts they deem as critical in

writing pedagogy. They concluded that instructors need to be explicit with

terminology and learning outcomes, and they can do this by encouraging genre

awareness through the understanding and sharing of threshold concepts: “These

five threshold concepts of writing provide a framework upon which students can

build a foundation of knowledge about writing and from which they can cultivate

the ability to understand the concepts foundational to a community, to recognize

the roles those concepts serve within that community, and to be able to discern the

boundaries between one community and the next” (p. 43). The conclusions of this

study are valuable support many of the concepts expressed in WAC/WID

pedagogical approaches, namely explicit instruction and genre awareness, and the

importance of transfer.

Adler-Kassner, L. & Wardle, E. (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of

writing studies (pp. 105-121). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

This book is the collaboratively authored identification and explanation of

threshold concepts within the field of rhetoric and composition assembled by

Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s (2015). Yancey (2015) elaborated on the purpose of

Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s’ (2015) project: “(1) identifying threshold concepts,

in this case thirty-seven of them, providing a core of the field in terms of what we

know; and (2) outlining how they can be helpful in various writing focused and

writing-related concepts” (p. xvii). The authors and editors of this work

emphasized that the threshold concepts were not intended to be canonical listing,

but rather an “articulation of shared beliefs” designed to define theories and ideas

within the discipline and provide examples of how to implement these ideas into

writing pedagogy. Through their collaborative project, Adler-Kassner et. al

identified five main threshold concepts in the study of writing transfer:

1. Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Activity

2. Writing Speaks to Situations through Recognizable Forms

3. Writing Enacts and Creates Identities and Ideologies.

4. All Writers Have More to Learn

5. Writing is (Also Always) a Cognitive Activity.

Each concept received its own set of subconcepts, each described in detail by

contributive authors and scholars. Examples are also provided as to occurrences

and potential implementations of each threshold concept. This project was

designed to provide further clarity and understanding within the discipline itself,

as well as to provide those outside a discipline with an in road to greater

understanding what concepts were considered critical within writing studies.

Bazerman, C. (1992). From cultural criticism to disciplinary participation: Living with

powerful words. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and

learning the disciplines, (pp. 61-68). Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312601388

Bazerman begin by recognizing a common criticism of rhetoric: that it is

perceived as a means by which people can distance or “disengage” from an issue

with the intent to reshape the understanding of content to their liking. He

disagrees, stating that it is understanding the “symbols by which we live” that we

come to be able to understand our responsibility in a social context and act

meaningfully. His argument then focuses in on rhetorical analysis of disciplines.

He warns that it is never a safe assumption to simply believe what they discipline

teach solely what they present, or that the disciplines themselves have a full

understanding of their own rhetorical and social contexts. The disciplines are

complex; therefore, it is a complex process by which students and scholars alike learn to “locate themselves and their work on an ever changing, complex field.”

Bazerman stresses that continuous rhetorical analysis of disciplines is step towards clarification, and further toward understanding: “rhetorical sophistication allows both insiders to move the discipline effectively and outsiders to negotiate with it and regain decisions that may have been inappropriately enclosed within the expert discourses.

The article includes an example from anthropology and the historical evolution of the ethnography by observing how the ethnography was once dominated by one “scientific” society observing another “exotic” society, thereby controlling knowledge and perceptions by “owning the discourse.” It has only been by understanding the existing of an imbalance, and challenging the ownership of discourse, that ethnographies have evolved from perpetually oppressing to empowering systems. Bazerman also uses the example of Newton, and how, when conducting rhetorical analysis of Newton’s work, he Newton demonstrating rhetorical sophistication on his way to establishing a new form of scientific discourse. This model of communication is carried out throughout the history of sciences, when remarkable discoveries and breakthroughs are shared in a way in which sense can be made by the many. Bazerman’s overall argument culminates in his endorsement for discourse studies of the disciplines as a way for students to understand “the evolving dynamics of each disciplinary field and the current state of play into which each new participant enters.”

Blaauw-Hara, Mark. (2014). Transfer theory, threshold concepts, and first-year

composition: Connecting writing courses to the rest of the college. Teaching

English in the Two-Year College, 41(4), 354-365.

Blaawu-Hara begins his essay by problematizing the transfer of writing

knowledge beyond the composition classroom. He claims that students struggle to

transfer writing skills and knowledge; therefore, recent scholarship and study that

investigates successful transfer theory is an area worthy of attention. Blauuw-

Hara gives a brief history and explanation of transfer theory and threshold

concepts, citing such scholars as Perkins and Salomon and their high-road/low-

road conceptualization, Doug Brent’s transfer-based suggestions on curricular

changes, and Fallon, Lahar, and Susman’s observation of writing knowledge

transfer from a first-year writing course to a psychology course. Although there

has been difficulty in identifying successful sites and instances of transfer,

Blauuw-Hara emphasizes that “transfer theory and threshold concepts hold great

promise for giving us ways to increase the relevancy of general-education writing

courses … which frequently suffer from a disconnect from the rest of the college

writing environment” (p. 354).

Blauuw-Hara attempted to apply transfer theory and threshold concepts

into his own courses and writing program. First, he anticipated that his college,

like all sites of learning, would have its own academic dialect. Then, to help

determine other academic dialects, he requested writing assignments from full

time faculty and adjunct faculty outside of the writing program. He collected

“eight assignments from the humanities, seven from the social sciences, seven

from math and the hard sciences, and ten from occupational programs” he

analyzed the writing prompts by creating a tale to key requirements to compare

their frequency across the assignments and found that there was not much

consistency in both expectation and form, especially in a lack of strong support

for argumentation, personal writing, a preferred form, or an emphasis of grammar.

Blauuw-Hara used these results to inform workshops and presentations, but also

recommended that transfer may be more successful with more similarity in

prompt structure across the disciplines.

Downs, D., & Robertson, L. (2015). Threshold concepts in first-year composition. In L.

Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of

writing studies, (pp. 105-121). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

In this study, Downs and Robertson (2015) build an FYC course with the

conceptual framework of threshold concepts. Their rationale for using threshold

concepts was summed in the arguments that “threshold concepts apply broadly to

almost every writing situation” (p. 106). They first identified the two main goals

for their FYC course design: (1) To place students within a curricular

environment that encouraged the reconceptualization of previous knowledge; (2)

To identify the course itself as a learning context in which writing knowledge

should be taught with intent to reuse the knowledge in target context. Through

analysis of their previous course designs, specific threshold concepts were

identified and used for the creation of new curricula. They concluded that

“threshold concepts can provide that framework to which students can transfer

revised or imagined prior knowledge, from which they can transfer new or

reconceptualized knowledge to a wide range of writing situations” (pg. 119).

This study can be used as a rationale for the further establishment and use

of threshold concepts in writing studies. Although both Downs and Robertson

(2015) looked at their own pedagogical approaches and instructional material to

identify threshold concepts, the importance and potential of threshold concepts

are still emphasized. In addition, their study looked at the threshold concept in

relation to transfer theory. Finally, this study stressed the importance and

effectiveness of transfer in writing contexts. This can provide both a rationale of

TCs within conceptual frameworks of research, course design, and more.

Graff, N. (2010). Teaching rhetorical analysis to promote transfer of learning. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 376-385. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614571

Graff piloted an assignment sequence that used rhetorical analysis to

promote writing knowledge transfer, claiming that an emphasis on rhetorical

analysis is a key component of knowledge transfer. Graff provided clear

definition of rhetorical analysis and genre and identified that successful transfer

was often the result of “meta-awareness,” or a focus on procedural knowledge,

and proper application of strategies, as opposed to explicit writing instruction. He

then describes his writing assignment, as well as the context in which it was

presented, in detail. He also describes the type of activities and classroom

instruction used to supplement the assignment, and how he used a strategy of

modeling to clarify the assignment expectations for students. A total of 10

students participated in the assignment (100% of class enrollment), 6 of whom

participated in interviews via email. Graff focuses in on one student “Jake,” to

illustrate his general findings.

Overall, Graff concluded that this assignment successfully increased

rhetorical thinking, and properly challenged the students to consider rhetoric and

genre in writing. He claimed that this process of “choosing an audience,

examining a text written for that audience, and revising for that audience … helps

students develop the understanding of writing they can apply to future writing

assignments.” He also provides a detailed analysis of his methodology to provide

an example for future instructors, emphasizing four distinct aspect of his lesson

planning and implementation that he deemed valuable for the project’s success:

focus on rhetorical analysis; modeling of analysis for students; explicit attention

to process; and flexibility.

Hayes, H., Ferris, D.R., & Whithaus, C. (2015). Dynamic transfer in first year writing

and “writing in the disciplines” settings. In C. M. Anson & J. L. Moore (Eds.),

Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer (pp. 181-213).

Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/ansonmoore/chapter7.pdf

Hayes, Ferris and Whithaus’ (2015) study of dynamic transfer in first year

writing and WID settings observed in what manner students approach and engage

with disciplinary writing in a WID setting. The focus of dynamic transfer expands

beyond the individual and looks at available and relatable resources that facilitate transfer. The researchers observed an upper division, writing intensive biology course at UC Davis. Hayes et. al (2015) claimed that a successful coordination between prior knowledge and resources within the target context led to an improvement in student success when generating new knowledge or understandings. The researchers conclude the study with an affirmation that,

“dynamic transfer, as a learning mechanism, provides a way to interrogate the relationships between a writer’s knowledge and the environment in which the writer is working” (p. 211). Hayes, Ferris, and Whithaus (2015) used learning objectives influenced by threshold concepts, and further support the idea that transfer needs to be further studied for its potential.

Stated implications of the study include the need to understand writing contexts and the tools contained within each that can facilitate transfer, especially in an environment where there is no direct writing instruction. Ultimately, the researchers hoped that the ability to identify and use resources to negotiate an understand of an unfamiliar writing task will carry over into unfamiliar writing contexts in which the students find themselves without any guidance or instruction. They re-emphasize that this area of inquiry is intended to benefit the instructor as well as the student.

Herrington, A. J. (1981). Writing to learn: Writing across the disciplines. In T. M.

Zawacki & P. M. Rogers (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A Critical

Sourcebook (pp. 118-127). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Herrington begins her study with a call for the responsibility of writing to

be shared among instructors, especially for students who are not ready for the

strains of academic writing contexts. She claims that the strongest way to

“eradicate” poor writer is to use theories and approaches across the disciplines.

Specific assignments and classroom practices were collected over the course of

two years. Each year, twelve faculty participated in a week-long seminar and

monthly meetings during the semesters to find diverse ways writing could help

redesign one course each semester. During the week, participants designed and

planned an assignment sequence to be implemented into a semester long course:

“workshop leaders introduced the participants to several types of assignments,

ways to define an assignment in a full rhetorical context (topic, purpose, and

audience), and techniques for responding to student writing” (p. 119). Both

students and faculty participants were asked how the experience of writing in the

course influenced their learning and teaching, respectively. Almost universally,

students reported that writing increased their understanding of the course content

in some way. Faculty perceived writing as beneficial to their course.

Herrington provides numerous examples of writing assignments and the

sequences that accompanied them. For example, Herrington describes an

assignment designed by a psychology instructor for a “Introduction to

Psychology” course, asking students to analyst one aspect of their behavior from

viewpoints presented in their course textbook. The assignment included labeled

sections: Question; Audience and Purpose; and Evaluative Criteria. This attention

to rhetorical considerations was a direct result of working with the summer

writing workshops, a common part of WAC programming. The instructor paired

the assignment with class periods explaining and applying related content, then

guiding the students through an analysis of one behavior through the varying

viewpoints. Then he used small group work to have students work together on an

analysis and present their findings to the class. This combination of assignment

and activity demonstrates the purpose of Herrington’s article: to explain “some of

the specific strategies which my colleagues from other disciplines have found

effective” (p. 119).

Linton, P., Madigan, R., & Johnson, S. (1994). Introducing students to

disciplinary genres: The role of the general composition course. Language and

Learning Across the Disciplines, 1(2), 63-78. Retrieved from

https://wac.colostate.edu/llad/ v1n2/linton.pdf

Linton, Madigan, and Johnson (1994) present several of their theories on

writing by providing a review of the writing studies literature and theories of the

time. First, they address a few prevailing theories of the time, including the

concept of explicit, disciplinary writing instruction, and express their belief that

instruction of writing in the disciplines should be explicit. They claim, however,

that English faculty should successfully introduce students to the language,

literature, and expectations of a learner’s potential discipline. This type of instruction “prepares students to attend to the writing demands of new situations and thus speeds their enculturation into new communities” (p. 65). They argue that the sequence or general composition courses should be designed to prepare the students for writing they will encounter in further studies and emphasize the importance of cross curricular collaboration in writing instruction, especially regarding the three conventions of academic writing - structure, reference, and language. They conclude their argument by emphasizing that the “composition course presents a unique opportunity to equip students with heuristically useful general knowledge about writing conventions in the disciplines” (p. 77).

This information in this study is a glimpse both into early writing transfer studies but also prevailing WAC theories. This information can be used to emphasize the importance of the FYC and other composition courses in introducing students not only to only academic writing, but potential writing in their discipline. This study also serves an example of an early attempt to create threshold concepts within the discipline. The researchers present their theory on the three major areas of study within writing and claim that faculty need to address these areas for students to be able to truly learn the expectations and conventions of academic writing. This information can be placed in a history of researchers attempting to establish what exactly is learned by students in academic writing settings, leading to such studies as Beaufort’s (2007) five domains and Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s (2015) threshold concepts.

Melzer, D. (2009). Writing assignments across the curriculum: A national study of

college writing. In T. M. Zawacki & P. M. Rogers (Eds.), Writing across the

curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 128-145). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.

Melzer describes assessing a single writing assignment from another

discipline is like looking at a “snapshot of writing in the disciplines, but only a

snapshot” (p. 129). He describes the purpose of the study is to provide a

“panorama” by conducting a collecting many writing assignments across

numerous disciplines. In total, Melzer “collected 2100 writing assignments from

400 undergraduate courses across disciplines” (p. 129). He uses Britton taxonomy

of identifying writing projects: writer (expressive function); text (poetic function);

audience (transactional function) but reformulates it by adding a fourth category:

exploratory (whether the audience is public). He further divided audience into

four categories: self, teacher, peers, and wider audiences. Melzer utilized recent

work in genre studies – defining genre as “responses to recurring rhetorical

situations rather than merely templates of form and format” (p. 130). He also

considers the two main forms of WAC research and practice – writing to learn

and learning to write. He recognizes scholars who say the difference is artificial

but still analysis his own results through a “multi-lens” approach, utilizing both

practices.

When analyzing the functions of writing, Melzer found that the largest

percentage of assignments were designed to be informative (transactional), with

13 percent designed as exploratory; however, he found little to no poetic or expressive writing. He concluded that “at every type of institution and at each level … writing to inform is the dominant function” (p. 132). When analyzing the assigned audience, Melzer found that 64 percent of the assignments used a

“teacher as examiner” model. He reminds the reader that writing-to-learn theorist typically agree that “this kind of emphasis on the instructor as examiner has a negative effect on student engagement” (p. 135) and that “instructors who assign only writing to the teacher … neglect to provide students with the kind of meaningful rhetorical purposes and social context found in assignments aimed at wider audiences” (p. 137). Furthermore, he found “student to instructor” in 18 percent of assignment, and “writing to peers” in 6 percent. He argues that more assignments should be exploratory, i.e. targeted at wider audience, because this typically requires a rhetorical situation, a genre, and/or a social context beyond simply writing for an instructor within the classroom. He concludes his study by repeating this belief that the influence of WAC programming has a positive influence on any instructor who chooses to participate. He closes his overall argument with a call for more interdisciplinary work to assist in the transformation of writing outside of the discipline.

Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use prior

genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year composition.

Written Communication, 28(3), 312-337. SAGE, doi:

10.1177/0741088311410183.

Reiff and Bawarshi observed the attitudes with which students entering

FYC approached new material. The purpose of the study was to see how students

reused or repurposed prior knowledge about writing. In their study, two types of

students emerged: boundary guarders and boundary crossers. Boundary guarders

are students who struggled to let go of previously acquired genre knowledge.

Boundary crossers are students willing to “break down” and repurpose previous

knowledge. Reiff and Bawarshi found that boundary crossers were much more

likely to repurpose their previous knowledge because they accepted their

knowledge was incomplete and could be altered. Many of the boundary guarders

had the disposition that there wasn’t more to learn; hence, many struggled to not

only learn new material, but to reuse previous knowledge.

This study is part of a recent history of different focuses in the study of

transfer, namely student dispositions and attitudes. The terms boundary guarders

and boundary crossers are particularly important terms by which students can be

classified. It further established that students are varied in their reactions to

content in new contexts, and that previous knowledge can be both a boon and

hindrance to approaching and navigating unfamiliar writing tasks. Reiff and

Bawarshi emphasize that rhetorical understanding and analysis can be a means to

accurately analyze the features and contexts of a genre, thereby leading an ability

to analyze all genres.

Thaiss, C., & McLeod, S. (2015). The pedagogy of writing in the discipline and across

the curriculum. In G. Tate, T. A. Rupiper, K. Schick, & H. B. Hessler (Eds.), A

Guide to Composition Pedagogies, (pp. 283-300). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

In this article, Thaiss and McLeod explore writing-across-the-curriculum

(WAC) and writing-in-the-discipline (WID). They define what each movement

entails, then go into detail as to the pedagogical approaches of each. The

differentiation between WAC and WID is often described as “writing-to-learn”

and “learning-to-write” respectively, or as Thaiss and McLeod (2015) define

“Writing to Learn” and “Writing to Communicate.” Despite the distinctions,

WAC and WID are often complementary and work together to teach students that

writing instruction and learning is not just found in FYC or composition courses;

it is encountered at all levels of education and beyond.

The pedagogical approach of WAC is “a model of active student

engagement with the material and with the genres of the discipline through

writing, not just in English classes but in all classes across the university” (p.

284). A core concept identified in both WAC/WID is cross-curricular

collaboration amongst scholars. They explain, “For WAC/WID pedagogy to work

in a first-year writing class, teachers must be aware of ways in which student

writing and learning are happening in the rest of the institution” (p. 287). WID

pedagogy “emphasizes the distinct disciplines, the discourse and rhetorical

features that characterize them, research that studies these characteristics, and

appropriate genres and writing pedagogies” (p. 284). A course that engages in

WID pedagogy need not be designed to do so; in fact, it may be common for a

course to teach explicit disciplinary writing instruction without being aware of

any supporting theory. Instructors may understand naturally that students need to

be shown the expectations and “moves” within the discipline.

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. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40593429

“Mutt genres” begins with Wardle arguing that First Year Composition

courses are not as effective as hoped, primarily in the sense that no one course can

contain sufficient writing knowledge and instruction that will carry into every

discipline. Instead, Wardle concentrated on the possibility of establishing writing

as its own discipline of study. At times, she concentrates on Writing about

Writing (WAW), which was created to combat misconceptions as to the purpose

of writing instruction itself. WAW often suggests doing away with the concept of

First Year Composition and encourages the establishment of writing studies as a

distinct discipline worthy of study and research. However, action research

conducted in this study found that knowledge was mostly transferable within a

highly similar context (e.g. another writing course), an example of what Salomon

and Perkins (1988) define as near transfer. When attempting to transfer writing

knowledge to a dissimilar context (e.g. a discipline specific, non-writing focused

course), an attempt at far-transfer, the students experienced an inability to

generalize – to recognize and repurpose the writing knowledge and skills they

learned in the WAW course. Wardle admits that this shift in course offering and

classification will probably not be accepted by all institutions, and that it is highly

dependent on local policy, structure, and practices. As an alternative to making

WAW required, she recommends that the course be offered as an elective to begin

the transition.

The study is a strong example of connecting research to praxis, in that the

information gathered, conclusions made, and implication explored have led to a

real influence on the teaching of writing. Furthermore, these approaches stem

from the desire to teach writing across contexts, with a deliberate intent to have

concepts from one writing context transfer to another. This study can also serve as

an exploration further into an aspect of transfer with the hope that the conclusion

will eventually help to influence WAC/WID pedagogy.

Wardle, E., & Clement, N. M. (2015). Double binds and consequential transitions:

Considering matters of identity during moments of rhetorical challenge. In C. M.

Anson & J. L. Moore (Eds.), Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of

Transfer, (pp. 161-179). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/

ansonmoore/chapter6.pdf

Wardle and Clement (2015) focused their work on the influence of

identity on writing within an academic setting, a relatively unknown and

unexplored framework. The researchers use Beach’s (2003) definitions of transition and consequential transitions. Transition is defined as the ways

“knowledge is generalized, or propagated, across social space and time” (Beach,

2003, p. 42). Such a transition, Beach argues, is “consequential when it is consciously reflected on, struggled with, and shifts the individual’s sense of self or social position. Thus, consequential transitions link identity with knowledge propagation” (Beach, 2003, p. 42).” Wardle and Clement (2015) use these definitions to establish a definition for the concept of collateral transition, an experience “during which home and school activity systems are in conﬂict” (p.

162). They further define their focus by introducing Engstrom’s (1987) term double bind: “In double bind situations, the individual, involved in an intense relationship, receives two messages or commands which deny each other—and the individual is unable to comment on the messages” (as cited in Wardle &

Clement, 2015, p. 162).

The researchers followed a pre-nursing student in Wardle’s Honors

Composition II at University of Central Florida (UCF). She was invited to be a co researcher through the recording, sharing, and reflecting of her own experiences when encountering a challenging rhetorical task. Wardle and Clement found that when the student did enter a rhetorically challenging situation, one that specifically required her to enter conflict between personal beliefs and those expressed in the class, she was unable to produce writing at a level she felt as truly representative of her abilities. The researchers do provide several

suggestions for future research, particularly in their observation of study

limitations. They warn that researchers can be limited by assuming students’ prior

knowledge and the successful sites of transfer. They also mention the complexity

of each student as the primary reason why assumptions or approaches designed

for all students are, at best, inefficient, and, at worst, exclusive and damaging.

Yancey, K., Robertson, L., & Taczak, K. (2014). Writing across contexts: Transfer,

composition, and sites of writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Yancey, Robertson, and Taczak (2014) wrote Writing across contexts to

explore how curriculum design and pedagogical approaches could be influenced

by the study of transfer, as well as the Teaching for Transfer pedagogical

approach towards writing instruction. Their research was motivated by three

sources: “(1) our experiences with portfolios; (2) our interest in the role of content

in the teaching of composition and; (3) our understanding … of helping the

students understand the logic and theory underlying practice if we want students

to practice well.” The authors look at many influences on writing knowledge

transfer (e.g. student dispositions and identities). They identified three methods of

reusing prior knowledge when confronted with an unfamiliar writing task:

assemblage, remix, and a setback or critical incident. Yancey, Robertson and

Taczak also discovered that students who approached unfamiliar writing tasks as

“novices” were able to repurpose their previous knowledge more successfully that

those who didn’t and were able to learn more writing skills within the new

context. Finally, through their extensive research, the authors list six general observations and recommendations for faculty considering a TFT approach.

This book is similar Wardle’s (2009) “Mutt genres,” in the sense that both are presented as pedagogical approaches that have been influenced by transfer research. Teaching for Transfer (TFT) is an example of a specific pedagogy that has sprung from writing transfer, and its approaches can be compared with those of Writing about Writing (WAW). The content of the book is intended to inform pedagogy, using TFT is an example of the results of transfer research and (2) this book specifically addresses the importance of consciously accepting contexts and understanding the changing requirements in each. The second point is especially important in establishing the idea that WID and WAC contexts may technically be different, but the results and implications of their research within each can easily inform both movements. This clarification relates to an overall theme within the study of how a WID study can inform WAC practices, and vice versa. Finally, much of the terminology and many of the studies in this book provide an overall perspective of transfer research and can relate back to various focuses such as dispositions and identity.

Chapter 4

PUBLISHABLE DOCUMENT

Rhetoric Across the Disciplines: Definitions, Perceptions, and Expectations of Faculty

Within and Beyond Rhetoric and Composition

Introduction

As teachers of general education courses, composition instructors are challenged to create a classroom where students encounter and acquire writing knowledge that will be sustainable throughout their academic and professional careers. The challenge increases, however, when considering that each discipline contains its own specialized discourse, complete with unique conventions and expectations - the challenge may begin to seem insurmountable when observing that within each of these disciplines reside numerous, even more specialized subdisciplines. One method by which composition instructors prepare students to enter these varying discourses is through explicit training in how to discover, be aware of, and eventually understand the rhetorical expectations and considerations appropriate to each context: to borrow Hassel and Giordano’s (2009) term, rhetorical adaptability.

Unfortunately, students continue to struggle with rhetorical adaptability. Hassel and Giordano (2009) conducted a qualitative study of 21 students as they progressed through a first-year composition course (English 101) into a transfer level composition course and found that instead of adapting to the new rhetorical demands of writing tasks, students “reverted to rhetorical strategies typical of pre-English 101 instruction” (p. 26).

Several studies have observed students struggling with genre awareness (Graff, 2011;

Wardle, 2007), including Clarke and Hernandez (2011) who found that “when students are taught genres outside of their context, they will focus more on surface and structural elements rather than rhetorical features” (p. 75). In addition, Bean (2011) described a large, statewide study which found that students were not demonstrating a basic knowledge of audience awareness. These studies combined illustrate the general issue: critical aspects of rhetoric taught in the composition classroom are not transferring to other writing contexts.

It is unreasonable, however, to expect composition instructors to be able to fully prepare students for every conceivable writing context. Even within the shared realm of academia, a master guide to each context simply does not exist, nor can it exist, as disciplinary rhetorical conventions and expectations continuously flux and reformulate in each discipline (Bazerman 1992). The only way for instructors to garner their own awareness of current disciplinary writing conventions and expectations in other disciplines is to engage in interdisciplinary efforts.

This study, therefore, supports the belief that the responsibility of writing instruction is shared, that it is to be sustained amongst composition instructors and disciplinary instructors who incorporate writing into their curriculum. It engages in interdisciplinarity by focusing on faculty who have taken the responsibility of writing instruction both within and beyond the composition classroom, namely composition instructors who are currently teaching general education composition courses at

California State University, Sacramento (CSUS), and disciplinary instructors who incorporate major writing tasks or projects into their courses at CSUS.

More specifically, this study aims to determine what connections exist between the definitions, perceptions, and expectations of rhetoric and its instruction utilized by composition instructors and disciplinary instructors. It seeks to further establish bridges between learning contexts (lower division writing courses) and target contexts (upper division, disciplinary courses) by determining whether rhetorical concepts, considered crucial by composition instructors, are recognized as equally so by disciplinary instructors within target contexts.

Data were collected via anonymous survey from faculty teaching composition courses in the Spring 2018 semester within the English department at CSUS. Data from disciplinary faculty were collected through three semi-structured interviews, one each from the Departments of Communication Studies, Sociology, and Civil Engineering.

Analysis of the data sought answers to the following questions:

1. How is the term “rhetoric” generally defined among composition faculty in a

single English department? How does that definition compare to definitions of

rhetoric in other disciplines?

2. How important do composition faculty think the study and understanding of

rhetoric for their students? Do disciplinary faculty perceive the study and

understanding of rhetoric similarly?

3. Which aspects of rhetorical understanding do composition faculty believe will be

of most value to students progressing through their academic/professional careers

and personal communications (i.e. personal emails, social media posts, blog

entries, etc.)? How do these expectations compare to disciplinary faculty

expectations for students both entering and leaving their classroom?

4. What are the perceptions of both composition and disciplinary faculty regarding

interdisciplinary efforts to supplement writing instruction?

Like students, instructors can understand how writing knowledge can be transferred to new contexts and disciplines through an observation of rhetorical instruction. Ultimately, this study hopes that instructors can use the results to inform their own teaching pedagogies and practices to facilitate a successful transfer of rhetorical knowledge, as well as encourage instructors to consider interdisciplinary approaches to writing instruction design and implementation.

The Difficulty in Defining Rhetoric

One purpose of this study was to determine how faculty teaching the same classes within a single discipline defined rhetoric. It is important to note that there is no existing standardized “definition” for rhetoric in composition studies - many scholars have preferred definitions, most of which do agree on the study of rhetoric’s basic purpose.

However, there are enough prominent scholars that use different terminology in their definitions, and even disagree on the basic function of rhetoric, carrying the tradition established with disagreements between Plato and Aristotle at the foundation of Western rhetorical tradition. A comparison of three prominent rhetoric and composition scholars’ definitions of the term rhetoric highlights these differences:

• Knoblauch (1985): “...rhetoric is the process of using language to organize

experience and communicate it to others. It is also the study of how people

use language to organize and communicate experience” (p.29).

• Bazerman (1988): “The study of how people use language and other

symbols to realize human goals and carry out human activities. Rhetoric is

ultimately a practical study offering people great control over their

symbolic activity” (p. 6).

• Ratcliffe (2003): “...the study of rhetoric is the study of how we use

language and how language uses us.”

From here, the terminology and phrasing each scholar uses in their definition can be analyzed:

Table 1

A Cross Comparison for Defining Rhetoric

Scholar Who uses What is rhetoric? What is the purpose of To whom is it rhetoric? rhetoric? directed?

Bazerman People use language and to realize human goals and (1988) other symbols carry out human activities, [to gain] control over … symbolic activity

Knoblauch People using language, to organize experience and to others (1985) study of how people communicate use language

Ratcliffe We, use language, (2003) language uses us

Overall, these definitions can be combined to provide a working definition of rhetoric: the act of analyzing and utilizing language to achieve a specific goal within a specific context. However, choices in terminology and focus in each definition individually can be enough to influence how current instructors conceptualize rhetoric themselves, and in turn, how it is taught to their students. For example, Knoblauch (1985) describes its purpose as effective organization and communication, Bazerman (1998) says its purpose is goal oriented, using the terms human and symbolic activities, and Ratcliffe (2003) only implies purpose, instead introducing the concept that not only do we engage in rhetoric, we are affected by it.

The ambiguity as to what the term rhetoric refers further complicates its use within the classroom and amongst scholars. Crowley (2004) described her own negotiation of its use:

[Rhetoric] refers to the generalization about rhetoric (what I call “rhetorical

theory”), as well as to the body of arguments that are made within a given

discourse situation. Because this last usage participates in the degradation of

rhetoric as evasive, deceptive, or empty, I use the word rhetoric to refer to theory

or practice rather than to a body of arguments about specific issues. (27)

Clearly, rhetoric itself has such varied definitions and uses within our own discipline, it may not be safe to assume its definition, application, and instruction within any other discipline is universal. As Bazerman (1992) argued, the disciplines are complex; therefore, it is a complex process by which students and scholars alike learn to “locate themselves and their work on an ever changing, complex field” (p. 241). Even more

diverse than the disciplines itself are those who participate in its instruction. One hypothesis as to the trend of unsuccessful sustainability of rhetorical adaptability was born from this diversity of faculty backgrounds, approaches, and pedagogical beliefs, which could potentially produce various definitions for rhetoric. These differences may also affect how faculty perceive the importance of rhetoric and its place in writing instruction, despite the considerable evidence as to its efficacy in writing knowledge transfer.

Transfer Studies and Rhetorical Adaptability

The study of writing transfer attempts to discover the ways in which students successfully sustain and repurpose knowledge across writing contexts. Moore and Anson

(2015) define transfer itself as "the phenomenon in which new and unfamiliar writing tasks are approached through the application, remixing, or integration of previous knowledge, skills, strategies, and dispositions" (p. 8). Examples of studies that focus on potential influences on successful transfer include student attitudes or dispositions toward writing and writing tasks, particularly when entering a new context (Driscoll and Wells,

2012; Yancey, Reiff & Bawarshi, 2015; Robertson, & Taczak; 2014), conflicts of personal and public identity when faced with a rhetorical writing task (Wardle &

Clement, 2015) and the study of dynamic transfer, i.e. the available resources in target contexts that facilitate transfer (Hayes, Ferris, & Whithaus, (2015).

The potential of rhetoric as a tool for transfer is well supported. Linton, Madigan, and Johnson (1994) claimed that successful introduction to the language, literature, and expectations of a learner’s potential discipline, “prepares students to attend to the writing

demands of new situations and thus speeds their enculturation into new communities” (p.

65). Beaufort (2007), Carter (2007), and Carroll (2002) all described that an increase in rhetorical knowledge is directly linked to an increase in knowledge transfer across contexts (as cited in Bean, 2011). Nowacek (2011) found that genre awareness led to an increase in sustaining and transferring writing knowledge. Recently, the Elon statement for writing transfer (2015) identified that an essential practice within writing classes was to purposefully guide students to “analyze expectations for writing and learning within specific contexts” (p. 5).

Studies focusing on rhetorical adaptability for transfer include Wardle’s (2007) longitudinal study following seven of her former first year composition (FYC) students through their subsequent two years of school, which led to the conclusion that the skill students seemed to consistently transfer across contexts was “the ability to analyze assignments, see similarities and diﬀerences across assignments, discern what was being required of them, and determine exactly what they needed to do in response to earn they grade they wanted” (p. 76-77). In this instance, Wardle (2007) was describing one form of rhetorical awareness: being aware of the differences between classroom contexts.

These results were determined by recording student experience in target contexts beyond the writing classroom. Alternately, Graff (2010) focused his study on rhetoric in a learning context by piloting an assignment sequence in his composition classroom that focused on rhetorical analysis to facilitate transfer. He concluded that the assignment successfully increased rhetorical thinking, and properly challenged the students to consider rhetoric and genre in writing, thus developing an “understanding of writing

[students] can apply to future writing assignments” (p. 384). Although data were collected from different contexts, the outcome of each study was the same: rhetorical knowledge and practices both transfer and encourage the transfer of rhetoric to new contexts.

The Effectiveness of Interdisciplinary Collaboration through WAC Programming

If composition faculty choose to use the study of rhetoric as a means of encouraging and facilitating transfer, they should be aware of which aspects of rhetorical knowledge faculty in other disciplines perceive as critical within their discipline, and what knowledge they expect their students to already possess when entering their classroom. One manner of facilitating and achieving successful interdisciplinary collaboration has been found in the writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) movement.

Assisting faculty with the incorporation of writing tasks and assignments into curriculum through interdisciplinary collaboration is at the heart of WAC programming (Thaiss &

McLeod, 2014). The WAC movement was initially born from two academic demands:

(1) the increase in enrollment, both in total population and student diversity and; (2) a growing focus on interdisciplinarity while maintaining disciplinary standards (Russell,

2002). Anson (2015) described learner literacy as a shared responsibility amongst the disciplines, and WAC studies seek to clarify these responsibilities and provide an open means of collaborative creation. Examples of successful interdisciplinary collaboration include WAC workshops assisting disciplinary instructors with the incorporation of writing into their courses (Bean, 2011; Herrington, 1981), co-authored disciplinary specific writing guides (Thais & Davis, 1998; Thaiss & Hess, 1999; etc.), and the

collaborative creation of communication-intensive (CI) instruction in disciplinary courses

(Craig, Lerner, & Poe, 2008).

WAC studies show not only results of interdisciplinary collaboration, but the increasing necessity. Melzer (2009), in a study designed to provide a “panorama” of college writing, collected a total of “2100 writing assignments from 400 undergraduate courses across disciplines” (p. 129), and analyzed the results through the lenses “writing to learn” and “learning to write,” two major approaches in WAC and writing-in-the- disciplines (WID) theory. Melzer found that the largest percentage of assignments at every institution were designed to be informative (transactional), and 64% of the assignments used a teacher as examiner model. He explained that WAC theorists typically agree that “this kind of emphasis on the instructor as examiner has a negative effect on student engagement” (p. 135), and that these types of assignments fail to provide or teach effective rhetorical elements. He concludes his study with a strong endorsement for WAC programming:

The instructors in my research who assign the widest variety of purposes

audiences, and genres, who provide students with interesting and complex

rhetorical situations rather than just the traditional lecture/exam format, and who

teach writing as a process through peer response or responding to rough drafts are

most often teaching in a course connected in some way to a Writing Across the

Curriculum program. (p. 142)

Thaiss and Zawacki (2006) took an even more comprehensive approach in their study of alternative discourses or writing in the academic disciplines. Their multiyear

study of disciplinary writing included data from written artifacts, student interviews, and interviews with faculty about writing within their own disciplines and courses. Thaiss and

Zawacki were afraid that faculty would not engage fully in a discussion of alternative discourse. What they found, however, was that faculty were more than able to engage in full and detailed discussions about standards and expectations in their disciplines, their own objectives for student writers, as well as their assignments and responses to student writing. This awareness of writing was attributed to the interviewee selection method: each instructor was prolifically published in their field, and many of them had, as Melzer

(2009) had described, been exposed to and participated in WAC workshops.

Ultimately, this study is intended to inform and benefit both faculty and, in turn, students. Bazerman (2012) stressed that cross-curricular collaboration is an opportunity for individual educator growth, a chance to solidify the concept of campus community amongst educators, and a way to invite “new forms of conceptualization that bring together the insights of the disciplines in a common vision” (p. 9). Russell (2002) clarified that WAC studies researching rhetoric and writing “are attempting to develop new traditions of inquiry into writing and its pedagogy that examine the structure of academia’s divisions and the ways that students and faculty may learn to travel among them, not transcend them” (p. 34). A goal of this study and a personal hope of mine is that this collaboration with other disciplines will help to solidify this “common vision,” contributing to new paths of travel for students and faculty alike among the academic divisions.

Methodology

Studies that focus on transfer typically collect data from students to determine transfer success - this study shifted data collection from students to faculty exclusively as a means of determining transfer potential. My intention was to focus on the perspectives of those who create the contexts in which students are introduced to or are tasked with using rhetorical knowledge. By focusing on faculty within and beyond the discipline, bonds can be established or strengthened between individuals desiring a common outcome: the improvement of student writing.

Both composition faculty and disciplinary faculty, through surveys and interviews respectively, were also tasked to provide definitions for the term rhetoric, which were then analyzed to distinguish choices in terminology and descriptions of purpose, as well as the way in which the term is (or isn’t), utilized. I did not provide a sample definition of rhetoric, nor had faculty choose from existing definitions, in order to purposefully recognize the ambiguity and complexity of the term. It is important to note that my intent was not to determine a definitive, generalizable definition for rhetoric; rather, I attempted to find shared connections between terminology and definitions to increase the potential of successful rhetorical knowledge transfer and adaptability.

The decision to survey composition faculty instead of conducting interviews served two purposes: (1) participants could maintain anonymity and thereby provide more honest answers and; (2) a greater number of definitions and opinions could be collected for a more accurate department overview. All faculty surveyed were currently

teaching and/or had previously taught an undergraduate composition course to ensure that they had taught content relevant to this study.

The methodology utilized by Thaiss and Zawacki’s (2006) provided a model for data collection from disciplinary faculty. I also chose to conduct interviews in which the faculty themselves could explain expectations and conventions within their disciplines.

The departments of Communication Studies, Sociology, and Civil Engineering were chosen in part by using Perkins and Salomon’s (1988) foundational terminology regarding transfer: near transfer (transferring knowledge between two highly similar contexts or tasks) and far transfer (transferring knowledge between two dissimilar contexts or tasks):

• Communication Studies shares a partial foundation with composition

through rhetoric. The department itself is housed in the same college as

the English department at CSUS, Arts and Letters, thereby sharing the

same general learning outcomes, including “fostering critical thinking and

effective oral and written communication skills.” For these reasons, I

considered Communication Studies to be a potential site of near transfer.

• Sociology observes human and socially constructed systems of

knowledge, which directly relates to the first of the First Year Outcomes

in the writing program at CSUS: “Develop awareness of how communities

shape reading, writing, and research.” Sociology was considered a site that

could range from near to far transfer.

• Civil Engineering at CSUS names mathematics and sciences as the critical

general education courses for lower division students. Upper division

students focus on the five fundamental areas of civil engineering

(environmental, geotechnical, structures, transportation, and water

resources). However, the third program educational objective listed by the

department is to “communicate effectively on multi-disciplinary teams to

address diverse challenges, creating solutions that serve the general

public.” As clear and effective communication is explicitly identified as a

crucial learning outcome, Civil Engineering was still considered a site of

far transfer, but one that is significantly closer to the center of the transfer

spectrum than other disciplines within the same College

What differentiates this study from Thaiss and Zawacki (2006) is that they did not work with instructors within rhetoric and composition, using existing theory instead to provide a basis of comparison. I chose, therefore, to compare the results of interviews with disciplinary faculty to survey results from composition faculty instead. In addition, although they chose to focus on alternative writing within the disciplines and how it challenges the conventions of each discipline, they touched only briefly on rhetoric - I decided to focus completely on rhetoric, with a comparison between its definition and utilization in the discipline of rhetoric and composition and others. Thaiss and Zawacki painted the mural - I attempt to enhance some of the finer details.

Data Collection/Procedures

Project Site – California State University, Sacramento

The research for this project was conducted exclusively at California State

University, Sacramento (CSUS). CSUS is a large comprehensive public university that serves over 30,000 students per academic year and awards Bachelor’s, Master’s, and

Doctorate degrees.

CSU Sacramento has three years of writing requirements. First year composition requirements can be completed through two paths: a one-semester English 5 or 5M course (“M” courses are designed for multilingual students) or a two-semester sequence of courses: English 10/10M and 11/11M. English 20 fulfills the requirements of a lower division, second year composition course. English 120A is an upper division course entitled Advanced Composition that is required for English majors and available for all students.

Currently, CSUS fulfills the California State University system-wide graduate writing assessment requirement (GWAR) through written examination. Regardless of assessment and placement, all students must take and pass an upper division, writing intensive (WI) course to fulfill the GWAR requirement.

Data Collection: Disciplinary Faculty

Three disciplinary faculty (one from each discipline listed) were interviewed. All three interviewees had collaborated with the English department and CSUS Writing

Program before. The content of the interviews focused on rhetorical instruction in each respective field, the expectations each field has of the rhetorical knowledge of the

entering student, and perceived student experience in meeting those expectations.

Interviewees were given a set of questions to prepare for a semi-structured interview (see

Appendix A). Interviews were conducted in person for communication studies and sociology, and by phone call (Skype) for civil engineering.

Data Collection: Composition Faculty

A survey was sent to English 5/5M, 11/11M (10/10M is not offered in Spring),

20, and 120A instructors at CSU Sacramento. The survey consisted of 8 questions: one multiple choice question, three five-point Likert scales (two of which had an optional comment box), three short answer questions, and one three-point Likert scale. The survey was designed using the free online survey creation software SurveyMonkey. The survey was sent to a total of 52 instructors, 28 of whom responded, a response rate of 53.8%.

Data for both the surveys and interviews were kept anonymous - no identifiable data were collected. Both the methods of data collection and the expected content were registered and reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The study was approved and received an ‘exempt’ qualification.

Data Analysis/Procedures

Stage One: Analyzing Data from Surveys

Datum were collected and organized by SurveyMonkey. Answers to Question 1

(Q1) were only to verify that those being surveyed had taught composition courses. The datum was then separated by category: Question 2 (Q2) received its own category of

Definitions of Rhetoric; Questions 3 and 4 (Q3 and Q4) were placed under the category of Perceptions of the Importance of Rhetoric; Questions 5 and 6 (Q5 and Q6) –

Expectations for the Transfer of Rhetoric; Questions 7 and 8 (Q7 and Q8) -

Interdisciplinary Perceptions.

The answers to Q2 were further broken down into the same four subcategories established previously in the analysis of Berlin (1984), Knoblauch (1985), and

Bazerman’s (1988) definitions: Who uses rhetoric?; What is rhetoric?; What is the purpose of rhetoric?; and To whom is rhetoric directed? Once the data were separated into the four subcategories, open coding identified recurring or repeated terms or phrases.

The most commonly utilized term or phrase in each category was then collected and reformed into a single definition.

Responses to Q3 and Q4 were statistically analyzed. Comments on Q3 and Q4 were organized in a table for direct comparison. Both questions provided the option for faculty to comment on their selections. The comments for both questions were then cross referenced with one another, as well as with previous definitions provided by the same faculty. Any comparisons of note were shared.

The responses for Q5 and Q6 were transcribed into a table and coded for frequency of terms. The most commonly used terms were collected and identified, as well as alternate terms describing the same concept. These terms and their usage were also compared with previous answers to find distinguishable patterns.

Q7 and Q8 did not have the option to comment, and analysis relied on the selections of the participants. Both selections from within the normal range and those that deviated significantly away from the mean were cross referenced with previous responses.

Stage Two: Interview Analysis and Coding

The recordings/answers from the interviews were transcribed and underwent two rounds of analysis using the grounded theory approach of constant comparative method

(CCM), as outlined by Boeije (2002), to further identify distinguishable patterns, themes, and categories. The first round identified instances of the following within each interview: where rhetoric or aspects of rhetoric are defined; where expectations of each discipline of student rhetorical knowledge is stated; where perceptions of rhetoric were shared, and previous interdisciplinary collaboration (as well as a desire for future collaboration) was expressed. The instances were then color-coded with a distinct color assigned to each focus. The color-coded datum was then collected into the same subcategories as the surveys: Definitions of Rhetoric; Perceptions of the Importance of

Rhetoric; Expectations for the Transfer of Rhetoric; and Interdisciplinary Perspectives.

The datum within each subcategory was compared across the interviews,

Stage Three: Cross Comparison of the Interview and Survey Data Analysis

Stage Three compared the survey and interview findings. It compared similarities and variations in data from each subcategory with both sets of faculty, leading to a round of axial coding to determine additional themes and subcategories. Once coded and compared, the data from each interview were constructed into cohesive narratives which highlighted relevant results. The similarities and variations were collected and analyzed as answers to the primary research questions. Results that sufficiently answered a research question were included in the Discussion.

Findings

Rhetoric Within the Discipline - Composition Faculty Survey Responses

The results of the surveys were organized using the same categories and subcategories determined during analysis. This organization was intended to accurately reflect the collection and analysis procedures described in the methodology.

Definitions of Rhetoric - Responses to Survey Question 2

Responses to Q2 were collected and organized into the subheadings originally presented in the analysis of scholarly definitions of rhetoric (see Table 1): Who uses rhetoric?; What is rhetoric?; What is the purpose of rhetoric?; and To whom is rhetoric directed? A final subcategory provides a collective definition of rhetoric for composition faculty at CSUS.

An analysis of the definitions of rhetoric reveal that current composition faculty in the CSUS English department mostly define the purpose of rhetoric in similar ways; however, the vocabulary used to define rhetoric varied greatly.

Who uses rhetoric? 9 of 28 (32.1%) identified an explicit speaker, using the terms students, people, a writer, you, an individual, we, and one. The most commonly used term was writer, found in 3 responses.

What is rhetoric? The greatest variations were found amongst faculty in this subcategory. Most often definitions began with identifying rhetoric as an identifiable skill, with such phrases as the art, the ability, the consideration, and the way. The second most common definition form described rhetoric as an action, such as using,

communicating, and interacting. The most commonly used term to describe the content that was either the focus of the skill, or being actively used by the writer, was language:

• “[Students, people] interacting through language”

• “[People] use language”

• “[We] use language”

• “conscious use of language”

• “the discourse or language”

• “the way we use language and image”

• “[One] uses language”

• “the consideration, analysis, and utilization of specific language”

What is the purpose of rhetoric? The most common purpose provided for rhetoric was as an act of persuasion or a means to persuade, followed closely by a means of communicating effectively. The terms persuasion or persuade were used by 10 respondents (35.7%), more than any other term. The second most used term was varying forms of communicate with 9 respondents (32.1%) incorporating such forms as communication, communicative, and communicating into their definition. Communicate was almost always paired with a synonymous form of effective.

To whom is rhetoric directed? The most commonly used term in this subcategory was audience. Audience was used either on its own or with the qualifiers intended, particular, or specific, implying that rhetoric is an adaptable act dependent on audience.

Other terms used in this category included discourse community, others, and reader/s.

Collective Definition from CSUS Faculty. From the provided definitions, a collective definition using the most frequently utilized terms was created: The way a writer uses language to communicate effectively or to persuade an audience.

Perceptions of the Importance of Rhetoric - Survey Questions 3 and 4

Responses confirmed the importance of the instruction of rhetoric in rhetoric and composition; in fact, one respondent even commented, “This question made me laugh since I have a hard time imagining any writing teachers suggesting that an awareness of rhetoric is unimportant.”

Table 2

Likert Scale of Perceived Importance of Rhetoric

Survey Questions 1 2 3 4 5 Total Not Slightly Moderately Important Very Important Important Important Important

Q3: How important do you 0 0 2 7 19 28 think the study and (0.0%) (0.0%) (7.1%) (25%) (67.9%) understanding of rhetoric is for students as they progress through their academic and professional careers?

Q4: How important do you 1 1 6 9 10 27 think the study and (3.57%) (3.57%) (22.2%) (33.3%) (37.0%) understanding of rhetoric is for students when composing personal written documents (i.e. personal emails, social media posts, blog entries, etc.)?

Overall Distribution 1 1 8 16 29 n = (1.82%) (1.82%) (14.6%) (29.1%) (52.7%) 55

Note: Q5: n = 28, μ = 4.61, s = .62; Q4: n = 27, μ = 3.96, s = 1.04; Total: n = 55, μ = 4.29, s = .91

The strongest demonstration of the difference in opinion between Q3 and Q4 is in number of participants who selected the category of Very Important, which dropped from

19 to 10. In addition, Not Important and Slightly Important both gained at least one selection. Combined for an overall perception of the importance of rhetoric, 55 responses produced a mean of 4.29 and a standard deviation of .91, meaning that faculty generally found the study and understanding of rhetoric was important for writing tasks across contexts.

For Q3, 20 respondents (71.4%) chose to comment on their selections. For Q4, only 9 respondents (33.3%) commented on their selection. Most responses supported the importance of understanding rhetoric moving into academic and professional contexts; however, the way in which instructors rationalized their perceptions varied. Respondent

18 (R18) provided an anecdotal example for why they chose Very Important: “I read many inappropriate and self-sabotaging emails from students.” R17 shared a specific classroom approach to making rhetoric applicable to personal communications: “If the student is writing to an audience, then an understanding of rhetoric is essential. I use texting as a means of explaining rhetorical situations in all of my composition courses.”

R5’s responses began a trend that demonstrated the ambiguity of the term rhetoric, as described by Crowley (2004). R5 chose Moderately Important for each question and rationalized their first response by claiming, “The problem is that most people teach that rhetoric is wrong, as in "that's just rhetoric," when it is actually communication/ talking/writing, so of course it is important. But how it's explained may not be very important.” For Q4, R5 wrote “Clear communication is important. Knowing

the term "rhetoric" is not.” These answers indicate that R5 may have interpreted the phrase “study and understanding of rhetoric” to mean the study and understanding of the term and its history, and not necessarily as an act of student engagement.

R24 questioned the wording of the question itself: “What do you mean by "study and understanding" of rhetoric? Do you mean studying "the Greeks?" as an example? Do you mean studying figurative language?” R19 stated that “at the more basic levels—I don’t think an in depth study of rhetoric is essential for all students.” R19’s response seems to indicate their understanding of the phrase “study and understanding of rhetoric” may have meant the study of the history of rhetoric instead of the study of how rhetoric can be utilized. All of these responses illustrate the variety of understandings a single term can inspire in a population of individuals expected to be professionally similar.

R14 selected Moderately Important for Q4 after selecting Very Important for Q3, despite making a clear connection between the importance of understanding rhetoric in personal writing contexts and professional writing (through personal and business emails, respectively). This mirrored an overall drop in perceived importance by composition faculty, indicating that instructors still find rhetoric to be useful and applicable in personal writing contexts, but not as much as in academic or professional. However, the increase in standard deviation also indicates a wider range of perspectives regarding the importance of rhetoric.

The only respondent who selected Not Important for personal writing contexts,

R15, had previously selected Very Important for rhetoric transferring to academic and professional writing contexts, which represents the largest difference in opinion of any

instructor; unfortunately, there was no clear explanation. I would recommend that future versions of this study require that respondents give a clear rationale for their choices, as to further understand the implications.

Expectations for the Transfer of Rhetoric - Responses to Survey Questions 5

and 6

The rhetorical aspects identified by composition faculty as most expected to transfer to academic/professional and personal writing contexts were audience awareness, purpose, and genre awareness, with audience awareness clearly identified as the most expected. In fact, the concept of audience awareness was included in 18 of 28 respondents (65.3%) for both Q5 and Q6. It is important to note that these were not all the same respondents; in fact, the total number of respondents who either used the term audience or explained the concept of audience awareness increases to 21 of 28 (75%).

The second most commonly named aspect was purpose, which was included in 10 responses for Q5 (35.7%) and 13 responses for Q6 (46.4%). The third most commonly named aspect was genre awareness, which was mentioned in varying form by 7 respondents for Q5 (25%) and 6 respondents for Q6 (21.4%). Traditional concepts and terms associated with the study and instruction of rhetoric, such as the appeals of ethos, pathos, and/or logos, or what these appeals represent, were rarely mentioned.

Table 3

Frequency of Most Common Aspects of Rhetoric

Survey Question audience awareness purpose genre awareness

Q5: Academic and Professional Writing 18 10 7 (65.3%) (35.7%) (25%)

Q6: Personal Writing 18 13 6 (65.3%) (46.4%) (21.4%)

Note: n = 28

An interesting result comes from the comparison of these responses to the definitions provided by faculty. The term most commonly used when defining rhetoric, persuasion, is only explicitly named once in responses to Q5 and Q6, with only 2 respondents mentioning the concept of argumentation. This indicates that although over one-third of faculty identify one of the main purposes of rhetoric to persuade, only 3 believed that students would be using rhetoric as a tool of persuasion/argumentation in academic, professional, or personal writing contexts. Instead, almost every respondent expected the first element of the collective definition to be most transferable: to communicate effectively.

R20 explained the importance of audience awareness in academic and professional writing by identifying writing tasks that would require audience awareness:

“emails, proposals, and collaborative projects.” In response to Q6, the same respondent shifted focus to genre awareness by stating:

In personal written documents, I believe genre will be important. Students

generally have an implicit and intuitive knowledge about genres, but they may not

be explicitly aware of it. They write every day and "know" the conventions of

certain genres (texting, emailing, writing blogs) even without instruction on genre

awareness.

R20’s responses, in comparison to the response of R21, reveals an interesting shift in faculty perception, with potential learning ramifications. While both R20 and R21 believed that aspects of rhetorical knowledge are important in personal communications,

R20 believed that students were already engaging this rhetorical knowledge implicitly and intuitively, while R21 believed that students had neither the situational awareness nor desire to do so. In a similar perception to R21, R16 only wrote, “I anticipate that students will write however it pleases them” indicating their belief that even if students learn how to use rhetoric in their personal communications, they will ignore the knowledge for their own preferred approach.

These results reveal a further insight into instructor perceptions of student ability themselves, particularly as they enter the composition classroom. This difference can affect and create a difference in teaching approach (Crowley 2004; Linton, Madigan, &

Johnson, 1992, Thaiss and Zawacki, 2006; etc.). If students are already engaging in rhetorical adaptability but simply remain unaware, then making the student aware is a way to facilitate transfer. If it is believed that students do not demonstrate any rhetorical adaptability, or it is assumed that they ignore genre or audience expectations, then other dynamics that have been introduced in transfer theory are present and must be

recognized, such as student disposition both within and beyond the classroom, and how it affects their ability to gain new knowledge (Driscoll and Wells, 2012; Yancey, Reiff &

Bawarshi, 2015; Robertson, & Taczak; 2014).

Interdisciplinary Perceptions - Responses to Survey Questions 7 and 8 (Q7,

Q8)

Q7 shifted the focus from perspectives and expectations of rhetoric for students to expectations for fellow faculty. Responses to Q7 revealed that generally, composition instructors do agree that instructors who teach disciplinary writing should include the instruction of rhetorical considerations when assigning writing, with 25 respondents

(89.3%) agreeing or strongly agreeing, and only 2 respondents (7.14%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.

Table 4

Faculty Perspectives on Rhetorical Instruction Beyond the Discipline

Survey Question 1 2 3 4 5 Total Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree

Q7: To what extent do you agree or 2 0 1 10 15 28 disagree with this statement: Instructors (7.14%) (0.0%) (3.57%) (35.7%) (53.6%) who teach disciplinary writing should include instruction of rhetorical considerations when assigning writing projects?

Note: n = 28, μ = 4.29, s = 1.06

Interestingly, R6, who chose Strongly Disagree for Q7, also chose Very Important and Important for Q3 and Q4 respectively. This study stands firmly with scholarship

supporting the instruction of writing as a shared responsibility (Anson, 2015; Thaiss &

McCleod, 2015). R16’s response seems to imply the opposite - rhetoric is important but should only be taught in composition classrooms. However, when looking at R16’s definition of rhetoric, it is not clear whether they truly feel rhetoric is worthy of time and study:

Rhetoric is often the enemy of critical thinking since rhetoric is not really about

finding truth; rather, it is about persuasion and winning arguments… If a

composition teacher is not showing students the difference between rhetoric and

critical thinking or is not modeling how writing and clear thinking are

inextricable, the teacher is not doing a good job. The classroom focused on

rhetoric is simply a place for indoctrination, not a setting where students learn to

think for themselves or discover the difference between a logically valid argument

and one that is both valid and true.

This project is not meant to single out a definition that can be seen as alternative to typical disciplinary understandings of rhetoric. Rather, this definition, and the lack of consistency in this respondent’s selections and comments, demonstrates that even though a single department emphasizes preferred scholarship, conducts “norming” sessions and activities, and shares desired objectives, individual faculty can still override these common concepts with their own interpretations. This preference of personal interpretation is also demonstrated in the other respondent who strongly disagreed with the statement, Respondent 15 (as previously stated, R15 was the respondent who chose

Very Important for Q3, but Not Important for Q4, that largest difference in opinion of all respondents).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, both R15 and R16 chose Not Likely for Q8, which measured willingness of composition faculty to help disciplinary faculty with incorporating rhetoric consideration into their writing instruction.

Table 5

Likelihood of Composition Faculty Working with Disciplinary Faculty on Rhetoric

Survey Question 1 2 3 4 5 Total Not (Less Likely (More Very Likely than than Likely Likely) Likely)

Q8: How likely would you be to 3 4 8 3 10 28 collaborate with instructors outside your (10.7%) (14.3%) (28.6%) (10.7%) (35.7%) discipline with incorporating the instruction of rhetorical considerations into their writing instruction and prompts?

Note: n = 28, μ = 3.46, s = 1.38

Responses to Q8 generally agree. A mean of 3.46 revealed that faculty are more than likely to work with disciplinary faculty with incorporating the instruction of rhetorical considerations into their writing instruction and prompts. In fact, the likelihood most selected was Very Likely, with 10 respondents (35.7%). 75% of participants chose

Likely or above, whereas 25% chose Likely or below.

This difference is slightly higher than in Q7, where 89.3% agreed that disciplinary instructors should include rhetorical considerations in writing instruction and assignments and 10.7% disagreed or were neutral. Although the questions are not directly comparative

statistically, these results could suggest that instructors’ expectations do not entirely match the possible desire and efforts required to meet those expectations. However, two clear correlations stand out. 8 of the respondents who chose Strongly Agree also chose

Very Likely, by far the highest pairing. Unsurprisingly, those participants in the 25% who chose less than Likely included all participants who selected Neutral to Strongly Disagree for Q7.

Summary of Survey Question Results

A holistic overview of the survey questions show that composition faculty tend to agree with the scholarship presented in this study: rhetoric is important for students to study and understand; rhetorical knowledge assists the transfer of writing knowledge across contexts; the instruction of rhetoric should not occur only in the composition classroom; and there is willingness to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration. However, the results also reveal that the definition and purpose of rhetoric varies greatly amongst composition faculty teaching the same courses at a single institution.

Rhetoric Beyond the Discipline - Interviews with Disciplinary Faculty

This section provides a general summary of the disciplinary instructor interviews.

The relevant data from the three interviews with disciplinary instructors are presented as narratives to reflect the conversational manner of the semi-structured interviews.

Communication Studies

The communication studies instructor began by explaining that the discipline is, in part, founded in rhetoric, particularly in discussions of persuasion and public address.

Throughout the conversation, the instructor continued to use the term persuasion, which

connected to the composition faculty definitions where persuasion was the most commonly defined purpose of rhetoric. Also, by using public address, the instructor identified an expected audience that students should be addressing: the public.

The instructor explained that within the discipline, there are dedicated rhetoricians, and each student seeking a communication studies degree is required to take a course at the upper division level described as an “intro to rhetoric class.” The instructor described how rhetoric is defined and used in other communication studies courses changes depending on the subdiscipline:

... there’s some who take a social movement approach, modernize the idea of

rhetoric, there's some people in our department, professors, who study film and

media and TV, so they look at rhetoric in a creative sense, and messages that are

created for the public. I don't know to what extent if any people are getting very

Avant Garde - I know there’s a strain of looking at rhetorical thinking that’s

looking at materialism and new materials.

The instructor emphasized, however, that aspects of rhetoric are a critical part of all communication studies. This diversity in usage and definition relates to what Bazerman

(1992) discussed within rhetoric and composition and what this study emphasizes: the disciplines are complex and made up of diverse individuals with diverse philosophies and approaches to instruction. In addition, when I described that a purpose of the survey for composition faculty was to analyze this very diversity, the instructor supported the concept and stressed the importance of open communication and collaboration between instructors within their own discipline.

Expectations for students and their knowledge of rhetoric both entering and leaving communication studies were also made clear. Upon entering the discipline, the instructor expected students to already understand rhetorical adaptability, specifically how to adapt their voice in a new context and be able to write for intended audiences; however, the instructor stated, “I think that they should have it, and 98% of them don't.”

They expressed further disappointment in the general writing abilities of their students when elaborating on audience awareness, stating that the students generally considered the instructor to be the audience in all writing tasks, even when an explicit audience was identified, a result supporting Melzer’s (2009) general findings.

Thinking beyond academia, the instructor described rhetorical adaptability as another “tool in the chest" to demonstrate to future employers. They claimed that

"essentially in this department, people cannot leave without an understanding of audience, argument structure, types of arguments that were flawed," identifying two additional interpretations of rhetorical knowledge: the knowledge of acceptable argument structure and the ability to identify flawed arguments. Many of their writing tasks described in the interview incorporated audiences beyond academia, a purposeful choice made by the instructor to have students engage with what they deemed to be transferable content.

The instructor then described a previous WAC workshop. They described it as a positive experience and chose to maintain the connections to the English department and writing program faculty who hosted the workshop. An interesting moment in the conversation came after the description of the WAC workshop, when the instructor

reflected that there are often discussions in communication studies about more collaboration with lower level writing instructors to clarify their expectations for students. They postulated that the general disappointment in student writing ability could be improved with more interdisciplinary communication.

This desire to both collaborate with writing programs and to continue to be dedicated to the improvement of student writing is promising for those involved in WAC programming. This desire to collaborate creates opportunity that can be taken as writing programs begin to prioritize the transferability of writing.

Sociology

The sociology instructor did not use the term rhetoric, nor were they aware of an equivalent term that is used in the field. They also expressed uncertainty that other instructors used the term. However, after further discussion, they began to use the word scholarly as a preface to several writing aspects. The term scholarly writing was used to describe general rhetorical expectations; for example, the terms scholarly way and scholarly audience were used when describing shaping content for specific audiences, the terms. They also connected the term scholarly tone to expectations for research writing.

When answering the question about what they expected students to already know when entering their classroom about rhetorical considerations in writing, and provided with the example of audience awareness, the instructor said that they did not expect students to understand rhetorical aspects of writing. In addition, they were not sure how to address what they expect students to already know about writing in sociology, and instead, assumed the students did not know what would be required of them.

The instructor did, however, expect students to demonstrate basic rhetorical adaptability, namely to understand that they would have to adapt their writing in some way for different writing tasks. Although the instructor said that they were unsure of how to bridge the gap between general education writing and sociology writing for students, they did expect that the writing tasks in their course would teach skills that would transfer to new contexts

The instructor also claimed that although they had been teaching for many years, the interview caused them to reflect on their own terminology, with reflective practices described as useful and important for their own practices. They then described a community/cohort classroom, which included an English professor, as a very positive experience because all instructors involved in this collaborative teaching method openly communicated expectations and methods. The sociology instructor concluded that they were very willing to participate in a similar project in the future.

Civil Engineering

As far as the instructor was aware, the discipline of engineering and his own subdiscipline of civil engineering does not use the term rhetoric; however, they did also say "that doesn't mean that we don't focus on writing and speaking in an effective and specific ways, especially when it comes to students understanding the importance of accuracy in the technical lingo." With this response, the instructor provided a potential definition within the discipline: writing and speaking and an effective and specific way.

They also named an aspect of communication that they deem most important for students in engineering: "accuracy in the technical lingo," or, in other words, accuracy in using

discipline specific terminology, a point of emphasis in rhetorical adaptability. The instructor then identified a second rhetorical consideration: understanding how to converse with the public. This focus emphasizes the importance of audience awareness, and within this example, the audience is the public.

An explicit example was provided by the instructor as to the importance of clear and accurate communication: the Florida International University (FIU) bridge failures. The instructor claimed:

… inaccuracies in both media and professionals reporting on the incident led to

faulty conclusions as well as a difficulty in communicating both with other

professionals as well as with the public at large. So that accuracy and

effectiveness in speaking is really, really crucial.

When prompted whether there were disciplinary specific terms to express these points of emphasis, the instructor said that they were unsure, but they described it as accuracy and discipline specific terminology.

The instructor explained that the majority of student writing projects in their courses were group projects, specifically because "[students] have to learn how to work with other people, in real life jobs, so I try to simulate that experience.” They also stated that they don't give explicit instructions for how to complete projects; rather, students are provided with expectations and general genre guidelines, demonstrating an emphasis on the third most commonly named aspect of rhetorical knowledge that composition instructors expected to transfer: genre awareness. Unfortunately, the instructor did not express confidence in students already understanding the concept of genre awareness or

rhetorical adaptability when entering their classroom. They do not put the blame solely on composition instruction - they express that they themselves need to do a better job of facilitating that transfer. When further prompted, the instructor agreed fully that writing is a shared responsibility, and that by assigning major writing projects, they were taking on that responsibility.

The instructor then shared a recent observation about writing transferring to the workplace, identifying a context in which they expected students to use the writing skills acquired in academic contexts. Recently, a few graduated students told the instructor that they were given a simple writing task as part of their job interview. This sample was meant to demonstrate both writing proficiency, but also an understanding of the writing expectations of the field itself. This contextually based requirement is a demonstration of the importance of understanding rhetorical awareness and adaptability.

At the end of the interview, the instructor illustrated why they thought collaboration held such value. This instructor claimed that working with writing programs has and continues to influence their own instruction, which has in turn influenced the students, and they described that over their teaching career, they have taught thousands of engineering students. They claimed that without the support of writing programs in their classroom, these students would not have received sufficient writing support in their discipline. Regarding this current study, they said:

... I'm really thrilled to collaborate with you guys and, as you know, I think very

highly of (name of writing instructor) and (name of a second writing instructor)

and appreciate what you guys are doing in dedicating your time and resources to

work with our students. I could just easily see how [collaboration] could expand

to the entirety of the college of engineering and beyond. It’s an important

function.

This enthusiasm towards collaborative writing instruction is encouraging for future efforts. This instructor continued to express both their pleasure with and enthusiasm in continuing working with writing programs.

Discussion and Implications

Overall, this study found that rhetorical adaptability was expected of students both within and beyond the discipline of rhetoric and composition; in fact, there were striking similarities in which aspects of rhetoric were deemed most important, and which aspects students were expected to understand and utilize. However, the greatest difference between all contexts was found in the use of the term rhetoric itself, as well as with associated terminology.

A collective definition of composition faculty at California State University,

Sacramento is the way a writer uses language to communicate effectively or to persuade an audience. Beyond the discipline, the results of this study found that the term rhetoric was only used in communication studies, an expected result as this discipline was marked as a potential site of near transfer. Although only one of the three disciplines used the term rhetoric, the importance of understanding rhetorical elements of written communication was found in all three interviews. For communication studies, the study of rhetoric taught students to persuade and prepared them for public address, directly relating to the most commonly named purpose of rhetoric by composition instructors: to

persuade. In sociology, understanding rhetorical elements could lead students to produce scholarly writing for a scholarly audience, a description that reflects the concepts of genre awareness and audience awareness, two of the three most critical rhetorical understandings identified by composition structures. In civil engineering, aspects of rhetoric taught students how to understand the genre or context in which they were writing in order to communicate effectively through accurate usage of terminology, ultimately with the purpose of being able to communicate with diverse individuals in the disciplines, workplace, and the public. When translated to rhetoric and composition terminology, this response claimed that students who understand and demonstrate genre awareness and audience awareness will be able to communicate effectively with different audiences.

This final result was slightly unexpected; civil engineering was originally marked as a site of far transfer, due to their emphasis on mathematics and sciences in the official program description. However, how the instructor perceived the importance of rhetorical adaptability was the most detailed and closest to composition faculty perceptions.

Although these results reflect the opinions of a single member of a diverse department, it is encouraging for future interdisciplinary collaborations to discover that disciplinary site that may have been considered as “distant” from our own shares such a similar perception.

The results of this study also found that when students exit the composition classroom, they are most commonly expected to be able to understand the purpose of their writing and adapt their writing based on genre and/or audience, a description that,

again, can be summarized as rhetorical adaptability. These aspects of rhetoric are expected to be almost equally important between academic/professional written documents and personal written documents. Disciplinary faculty had the same expectations as composition faculty for students entering their courses: students should be able to adapt their writing to the discipline and for specific audiences.

However, all three disciplinary instructors claimed that almost all of their students did not demonstrate rhetorical adaptability; in fact, all three instructors, without prompting, estimated that over 90% of their students failed to demonstrate rhetorical adaptability. This extreme lack of confidence in students’ rhetorical adaptability is worth observing further amongst faculty in these disciplines and beyond. If this were found to be a substantial and significant belief, it would match the scholarship that states that rhetorical knowledge is not transferring to new sites of learning; therefore, more research can be done to discover ways to facilitate this transfer. In addition, this result implies a further need for interdisciplinary collaboration for the instruction of rhetoric. Continued collaboration can not only increase the success of rhetorical knowledge transfer, but improve relations with other disciplines, who question our efficacy in teaching students to write, a sentiment that all three disciplinary faculty, again unprompted, confirmed was shared by a number of their peers.

The disciplinary instructors’ lack of confidence in their students’ rhetorical adaptability changed dramatically, however, when the disciplinary instructors described their expectations for students exiting their classrooms. All three instructors claimed that students were fully expected to understand and demonstrate rhetorical adaptability. This

confidence in the transferability of content beyond disciplinary writing contexts was directly related to students engaging in writing tasks that deliberately simulated professional writing tasks. This approach can be paralleled by composition instructors through a suggestion provided by the civil engineering instructor: earlier introduction to disciplinary writing in the composition classroom. Further study can find ways to integrate more disciplinary writing into the composition classroom. For example,

Teaching for Transfer (TFT), is distinguished by an explicit teaching of transfer concepts, a curriculum focused on “writing-rich and writing-specific terms, concepts, and practices” (p. 56), and a development of individual student theories of writing (Yancey,

Robertson, and Taczak, 2014). If explicit use of writing terminology is encouraged, emphasis could expand to include explicit disciplinary writing terminology and an exploration of disciplinary writing tasks, perhaps within the individual student theories of writing.

This study also found a willingness for interdisciplinary collaboration in both faculty within and beyond rhetoric and composition. Composition faculty at CSUS overwhelmingly believe that disciplinary faculty should incorporate rhetorical considerations when assigning writing tasks. Fortunately, most composition faculty expressed a willingness to participate in interdisciplinary efforts to assist disciplinary faculty in the instruction and implementation of rhetorical considerations.

All three disciplinary instructors also expressed a willingness for further collaborations. Each had worked previously with the writing programs. The communication instructor attended a workshop (a primary offering of WAC

programming). They described how they had misunderstood the purpose of the workshop, but instead of leaving disappointed, they were willing to participate in what was being offered and found that it benefited their writing knowledge and instruction in unexpected ways. For the sociology instructor, the experience of teaching with a composition instructor in the community/cohort classroom was an overwhelmingly positive experience, specifically because the expectations for students were explicit amongst the faculty, therefore they could teach toward common goals. Finally, the civil engineering instructor, despite teaching in a discipline marked as a site of far transfer, was most enthusiastic about continuing work with the writing program, expressing their desire to share their experiences with a writing-in-the-disciplines (WID) workshop with the rest of the department. They were confident that their positive experiences could be shared by faculty and further benefit students. The three approaches to collaboration named by the disciplinary instructors all exist within current WAC programming.

Whether it be WAC workshops for faculty development, community/cohort curriculum design, or team teaching through WID workshops, these results further strengthen the theory that successful interdisciplinary collaboration can be facilitated through deliberate and extensive WAC programming at universities.

If anything, these combined results emphasized the importance in recognizing the complexity and ambiguity of rhetoric and related terms. While a general definition for rhetoric was determined based on composition faculty definitions, the highest frequency of any term in the definitions was 35.7%, and only one of three disciplines beyond composition used the term itself. These results imply that even if the definitions are

similar, the words used to define rhetoric and various aspects of rhetoric vary so much among faculty, students may be leaving and entering each classroom with different understandings, which only compound when these words take on new meanings in new contexts.

The results of this study do not argue, however, for a universal definition for the discipline as the solution, or believe it is feasible. Instead, I interpreted these results as encouragement to consider alternative approaches of introducing the basic terminology of rhetoric. Most often, the word rhetoric is used in myriad ways: students will engage in rhetoric, analyze rhetoric, understand rhetorical appeals, etc. Perhaps a different approach to using the term could prove beneficial. This study uses rhetorical adaptability (Hassel

& Giordano, 2009) as an umbrella term for what is expected of students when encountering new and unfamiliar writing tasks. R17 used an alternate term to refer to the same expectation: “I think they use the concept of rhetorical agility … To me, composition prepares students to be flexible, agile writers who are able to successfully adjust their writing to a variety of situations.” Another term found within composition scholarship is Bazerman’s (1992) rhetorical sophistication. Additional studies could observe introducing rhetorical knowledge as an internal quality that students can obtain rather than a external tool for students to use; in other words, stating what we expect students to become instead of what we expect students to encounter. The effect of this simple yet potentially influential shift in approach, one that engages in new and promising avenues of composition study, such as the transformative power of threshold

concepts (Adler-Kassner, Clark, Robertson. Taczak, & Yancey, 2015; Blaauw-Hara,

2014; Downs & Robertson, 2015), may prove worthy of study.

Limitations

As was mentioned several times in this study, the disciplines are complex and dynamic contexts (Bazerman, 1992) – changes occur in ideologies, approaches, and pedagogies. Although this serves as a rationale for the study, it is also a limitation. As this study sought to update current understandings of rhetoric, as the disciplines shift, this research will need to be repeated and reanalyzed. Further studies would be well served to recognize this complexity and recognize the many subdisciplines and their differences in each discipline as well. These subdisciplines would need to be further identified, explored, and understood, possibly through the collaborative efforts within the disciplines themselves.

In addition, to interview only one person from each discipline is getting a very limited picture - as Melzer (2009) described his study as moving beyond the snapshot to provide the panorama - this study is more the early collections of an album. A single perspective may not be shared with others within the department, particularly when regarding student needs and expectations - responses to the survey in this study only confirmed this further. More individuals from each discipline could be interviewed to create a more complete picture of rhetorical instruction, expectations, and needs in each field of study.

In surveying composition faculty, a certain freedom was permitted with faculty choosing whether to rationalize their selections. While it is hoped that most took the time

to provide clear and deliberate answers, some responses seem to indicate that this may not have been the case. Instead of having the option to rationalize decisions, I would recommend it be mandatory, or that the survey provide the option to request follow up questions or interviews with willing participants. This requirement could clarify otherwise puzzling responses and provide a more detailed picture of rhetoric in the discipline.

Finally, the project was conducted exclusively through the lens of instructors. To truly find results that could be effective in classroom praxis, students would need to be included in the data gathering as well. The perspective of the student would be invaluable to determine why rhetoric is not transferring, and they could possibly provide suggestions for improved instruction.

Conclusion

This study alone can speak to the potential and effectiveness of interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. Each interviewee expressed how the interview caused reflection on their teaching practices and concluded that they could be more focused on understanding how they teach writing. Furthermore, each interview developed into a private conversation in which each interviewee expressed further interest in this project, and a general willingness to contribute more information if needed.

The need and desire to collaborate is there. We, as composition faculty, can consider the willingness of disciplinary faculty to collaborate on writing instruction, as well as their belief in its efficacy, as a prime opportunity for mutual benefit. We expect our students to brave the paths to new disciplines in order to develop as writers and

thinkers - I hope that faculty, as fellow theorists, researchers, and educators, will follow their example, and attempt to travel these paths ourselves. By doing so, we create the opportunity to create more effective and beneficial understandings, strengthen campus community bonds, and, ultimately, better serve our students.

Appendix A

Semi-Structured Interview Questions

1. Is the term “rhetoric” used in your discipline, in any discipline-specific way? How is rhetoric defined or understood?

2. Do you teach, or have you ever taught, an upper-division, discipline specific course that included writing assignments, projects, etc.? If so, what were the courses?

3. Do you incorporate explicit and/or implicit instruction of specific rhetorical strategies or considerations when assigning students writing projects?

4. What expectations, if any, do you have for students entering your course, specifically in their understanding and utilization of rhetorical principles and strategies? For example, expecting students to write with a reader in mind or with “audience awareness,” i.e. shaping writing and content delivery for a potential or intended reader.

5. Have you ever collaborated with a writing program before when designing your writing prompts, materials, resources, etc.? If so, what was your impression of the overall experience?

Appendix B

Composition Faculty Survey Questions

1. Which of the following sections have you taught and/or are currently teaching? Please check all that apply.

2. How would you define the term "rhetoric" within writing instruction?

3. How important do you think the study and understanding of rhetoric is for students as they progress through their academic and professional careers? (1) Not Important (2) Slightly Important (3) Moderately Important (4) Important (5) Very Important

(Optional) Please explain your answer:

4. How important do you think the study and understanding of rhetoric is for students when composing personal written documents (i.e. personal emails, social media posts, blog entries, etc.)? (1) Not Important (2) Slightly Important (3) Moderately Important (4) Important (5) Very Important

(Optional) Please explain your answer:

5. What aspects of rhetorical knowledge do you anticipate students to use most frequently in their future academic and professional careers?

6. What aspects of rhetorical knowledge do you anticipate students to use most frequently when composing personal written documents?

7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement: Instructors who teach disciplinary writing should include instruction of rhetorical considerations when assigning writing projects? (1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

8. How likely would you be to collaborate with instructors outside your discipline with incorporating the instruction of rhetorical considerations into their writing instruction and prompts? (1) Very Likely (2) (3) Likely (4) (5) Very Likely

Appendix C

Table 6 - Composition Courses Taught/Teaching

Table 6

Composition Courses Taught/Teaching

Name of Composition Course Courses Previously Taught or Currently Teaching Percentage

English 5 25 89.29%

English 10/11 20 71.43%

English 20 23 82.14%

English 120A 5 17.86%

Appendix D

Tables 7 & 8 - Definitions Table 7

Faculty Definitions of Rhetoric

Respondent How would you define the term “rhetoric” within writing instruction? (R#)

R1 The consideration, analysis, and utilization of specific language to enhance, alter, and persuade content.

R2 The study of communication.

R3 Inventing and applying the best choices to get your point to a specific audience, within the expectations of a specific genre, at a specific point in time.

R4 Rhetoric is how a writer goes about getting their message across to the audience and includes the choices they make in constructing the text. I also discuss the rhetorical situation and how questions about the rhetorical situation can be used for approaching both reading and writing.

R5 It is the art of discourse. It is communication.

R6 The way the author’s message is conveyed to the reader.

R7 techniques for persuasion and effectively sharing information with readers

R8 pretty broadly – rhetoric is the way we use language and image to communicate with an audience

R9 How one uses language to effectively communicate ideas.

R10 Teaching students to speak and write with an academic voice so that they can contribute to the classroom conversation.

R11 I define it for my students in the following way: Rhetoric is the collection of choices made to persuade (i.e., to get the attention of) an intended audience.

R12 The discourse or language by which an individual, in composition the writer(s), attempts to inform, persuade, or entertain a particular audience (usually from a particular discourse community).

R13 This could be defined slightly differently for each individual course, but that would take forever (sorry). Generally speaking, “rhetoric” is the act of communicating through written or verbal texts using and/or playing within conventional, expected genres.

R14 I want to define rhetoric as the way we use language to convince others of a certain meaning or message, but I have definitely used it in broader terms as whatever choices we make to convey a specific message.

R15 the way words are used to persuade getting a message across to a particular audience

R16 Rhetoric is often the enemy of critical thinking since rhetoric is not really about finding truth; rather, it is about persuasion and winning arguments. The courtroom is a classic example of rhetoric as are media figures like Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity. If a composition teacher is not showing students the difference between rhetoric and critical thinking or is not modeling how writing and clear thinking are inextricable, the teacher is not doing a good job. The classroom focused on rhetoric is simply a place for indoctrination, not a setting where students learn to think for themselves or discover the difference between a logically valid argument and one that is both valid and true.

R17 The art of using all available means of persuasion (a la Aristotle) with a specific focus on writing.

R18 The decisions you make about the shaping and crafting of prose and the effect those decisions have on audience.

R19 The strategies chosen to best communicate a message to an audience.

R20 Teaching rhetoric means to make students aware of the many mechanisms and devices people use to communicate effectively and persuasively. Rhetoric in writing has to do with interacting with others through language.

R21 Rhetoric is the conscious use of language for a specific purpose.

R22 The ability to communicate effectively in a given situation (real or hypothetical).

R23 Using the right approach for a writing situation.

R24 Rhetoric is how people use language for their communicative purposes.

R25 The tool by which a writer comes to define her exigence, purpose, audience, subject, mode of delivery, all which will allow her to craft a meaningful, coherent, influential text.

R26 I would say that rhetoric within writing instruction would mean understanding audience and purpose and using the knowledge of those two to create an effective text or something composed in another medium, other than writing.

R27 The art of persuasion.

R28 The art of persuasion.

Table 8

Breakdown of Faculty Definitions of Rhetoric

Respondent Who uses What is rhetoric? What is the purpose of To whom is (R#) rhetoric? rhetoric? rhetoric directed?

R1 - the consideration, to enhance, alter, and - analysis, and utilization persuade content of specific language

R2 - the study of - - communication

R3 - inventing and applying to get your point to a specific the best choices… within across audience the expectations of a specific genre, at a specific point of time

R4 a writer goes about Getting their message to the audience across choices they make in constructing the text.

R5 - the art of discourse. It is - - communication.

R6 - the way the author’s - to the reader message is conveyed

R7 - techniques for persuasion and with readers effectively sharing information

R8 - the way we use language to communicate with an audience and image

R9 one uses language to effectively - communicate ideas

R10 students to speak and write with to contribute to the classroom an academic voice conversation

R11 - the collection of choices to persuade (i.e. to get an intended made the attention of) audience

R12 an individual, the discourse or language attempts to inform, a particular in composition persuade, or entertain audience (usually the writer(s) from a particular discourse community)

R13 - written or verbal texts the act of - using and/or playing with communicating conventional, expected genres

R14 we use language, to convince others of - certain meaning or message

R15 - the way words are used to persuade getting a to a particular message across audience

R16 - the enemy of critical it is about persuasion - thinking … not really and winning about finding truth arguments

R17 - the art of using all - - available means of persuasion (a la Aristotle) with a specific focus on writing

R18 you the decisions … about - on audience shaping and crafting of prose and the effect those decisions have

R19 - the strategies chosen to best communicate a to an audience message

R20 Students, aware of the many to communicate - people mechanisms and devices, effectively and persuasively with others interacting through language

R21 conscious use of for a specific purpose language

R22 The ability to communicate effectively in a given situation (real or hypothetical)

R23 Using the right approach for a writing situation

R24 people use language for their communicative purposes

R25 a writer the tool… to define her to craft a meaningful, exigence, purpose, coherent, influential audience, subject, mode text. of delivery

R26 - Understanding audience To create an effective - and purpose and using text or something the knowledge of those composed in another two medium, other than writing

R27 - the art of persuasion - -

R28 - the art of persuasion - -

Appendix E

Table 9 – Comments on Importance of Rhetoric

Table 9

Optional Comments for Importance of Rhetoric

Respondent Q3: What aspects of rhetorical knowledge do Q4: What aspects of rhetorical (R#) you anticipate students to use most frequently knowledge do you anticipate students to in their future academic and professional use most frequently when composing careers? personal written documents?

R1 Can be applied to any written assignment Can be applied to any interaction

R2 This question made me laugh since I have a hard time imagining any writing teachers suggesting that an awareness of rhetoric is unimportant.

R3 use all day, every day Should always be thinking about it. But I am sure there are un-rhetorical situations.

R4 Knowing about rhetoric allows someone to understand and approach new writing or reading situations

R5 The problem is that most people teach that Same thing. Clear communication is rhetoric is wrong, as in “that’s just rhetoric,” important. Knowing the term “rhetoric” when it is actually communication/ is not. talking/writing, so of course it is important. But how it’s explained may not be very important

R8 it’s everything. Students needs to really Because these genres are much more understand and apply concepts like exigence familiar and they are exposed to them so and audience and constraints to fully frequently, I think most students pick up appreciate the situational nature of any writing the conventions pretty readily task and learn to make effective choices in their own writing tasks. If all they do is write to the teacher and they never have practice writing for authentic audiences and purposes, it will likely be much more difficult for them to learn to make effective rhetorical decisions in other situations.

R10

R11 Whether you’re making rhetorical choices I prefer students to think of rhetoric as a when interacting with people or not, at least tool and not as a requirement. Just as being rhetorically aware of every situation long as they know they’re making you’re in is invaluable. rhetorical choices all the time, whether consciously or not.

R12

R13 This is especially important in terms of understanding how to ask questions about expected genres from future teachers of bosses.

R14 I think the understanding that everything you I don’t think students absolutely need to do expresses a certain idea, and that writers be aware that they are participating in and readers have to practice looking for that rhetoric or know what it is to accomplish idea or presenting that idea, and that different those specific tasks, but I do think that backgrounds will influence how that idea is an awareness of the fact that they are received is very important...I think the sooner conveying a particular message is you learn it, the sooner you realize that important, and the realization that they everything can be analyzed and has a specific convey that message differently for purpose, and you can realize better what your different audiences may be important for purpose is in each situation. college students making the transition from personal emails to business emails.

R15

R16 It is very important to understand how dishonest rhetoricians manipulate the public. Students need to recognize dishonest rhetoric and learn to protect themselves from it. Especially key is for students to recognize the difference between emotionally satisfying arguments and ones that are substantive. It is key for students to understand how red herrings and straw men are used as rhetorical tricks.

R17 Rhetoric provides a structure for If the student is writing to an audience, understanding the rhetorical situation, then an understanding of rhetoric is something that defines all interpersonal essential. I use texting as a means of communication. Without a fundamental explaining rhetorical situations in all of understanding of that concept, writers will my composition courses. struggle to understand that writing is contextual and that it varies amongst and even within genres depending on the situation.

R18 We are suffering a civic failure to I read many inappropriate and self- communicate effectively. sabotaging emails from students.

R19 at the more basic levels—I don’t think an in depth study of rhetoric is essential for all students,

R20 Understanding and becoming aware of how others communicate persuasively and effectively will help students learn to write with rhetoric in mind. Teaching rhetoric can make students aware of the ways people interact in writing. After all, teaching rhetorical awareness is one of the most important outcomes of FYC.

R21

R22 One of the most important lessons I aim to get across to my students is that different courses (and, by extension, discourse communities, REQUIRE diff types of writing—this is often a revelation for them.

R23 Being aware of context and situation is essential for academic/professional success

R24 Question: What do you mean by “study and understanding” of rhetoric? Do you mean studying “the Greeks?” as an example? Do you mean studying figurative language?

R25 Rhetoric is the body, is human interaction, is discourse.

R26 I selected “important,” instead of “very Rhetoric is very important to what important,” because I was never taught students write, even outside of the rhetoric in school and was able to get by just classroom, because as a form of fine, but know that I’ve studied it and teach it, communication, being able to effectively I find it significantly helpful. communicate your ideas is important, and applying rhetoric will help students be able to do that.

R27 Students should be aware of rhetorical features, both as readers and as writers.

R28

Appendix F

Table 10 – Composition Faculty Expectations

Table 10

Composition Faculty Expectations for Rhetorical Knowledge Transfer

Respondent Q5: What aspects of rhetorical knowledge Q6: What aspects of rhetorical knowledge (R#) do you anticipate students to use most do you anticipate students to use most frequently in their future academic and frequently when composing personal professional careers? written documents?

R1 Genre awareness, understanding of Genre awareness, understanding of purpose, audience awareness purpose, audience awareness

R2 Audience awareness. Audience awareness.

R3 Making proposals. Responding to Choice of details for a specific audience. proposals. Reacting to written text or What to include, what to omit. What should speeches. So both as readers and listeners come first, second, etc. but also speakers and writers.

R4 Audience and how to approach different Audience and how to approach different audience is one aspect they will use audience is one aspect they will use frequently. Also thinking about how to frequently. Also thinking about how to construct a text to best communicate to that construct a text to best communicate to that audience audience

R5 I would like them to know how to argue, Again, how to be clear is most important but many are never really taught it. I would like them to know how to be clear

R6 Audience awareness Being aware of their usage of pathos.

R7 using examples 23

R8 audience awareness, genre conventions, audience awareness, genre conventions, voice voice

R9 The aspects of purpose for writing and the Purpose and Audience audience is important, along with understanding of rhetorical appeals such as Logos, pathos and ethos. My experience is that most students have a basic understanding of these concepts at a very rudimentary level and struggle to actually apply it to academic texts.

R10 Students need to learn how to adapt to Awareness of purpose, audience, persona or academic and professional discourse ethos, as well as kinds of evidence required communities being aware of the rhetorical in each rhetorical situation. factors that influence how they communicate with their peers, professors and supervisors in each environment.

R11 Honestly, I think the awareness that they If anything, that they more fully visualize make choices to appeal to audiences and who the reader is (or who they want the texts do the same to them is what I think reader to be). they take away and less the individual appeals and the more technical aspects of rhetorical study.

R12 Understanding of exigence, purpose, All of the above. Intimate knowledge of the audience, format/style/tone/language usage, interplay of exigence, purpose, audience, and context, Facets of logos and pathos are and format/style/tone/language are essential linked to specific genres and purposes in presenting a successful message.

R13 All aspects. Question is a little too broad. Again, personal written documents is too broad. Are we looking at docs within a course or within a profession. Within most of my courses, there are no personally written documents (no narrative), expect the Portfolio letter, which is treated like a cover letter and application for a job. However, all aspects again.

R14 In the future I think students will more I think students will think about their deeply consider the purpose of whatever message, their audience, and the constraints message they are trying to convey, and how of sharing that message rather equally to achieve that purpose based on the depending upon what they are composing. audience and constraints that they have. An If they are unfamiliar with their audience, awareness of audience and constraints will the context, or the message they are trying help students in the classroom and the to convey, then they will focus on either workplace, as they realize what language is one of those more than the others, but unacceptable and what forms of otherwise I think that students balance communication are most effective. those three things when communicating.

R15 Focus, persuasion, clarity audience awareness

R16 Again, clear thinking and the ability to I anticipate that students will write however express it in writing are what's important. it pleases them. Employers are dying for people with these skills.

R17 I think they use the concept of rhetorical Again, rhetorical agility agility, although few of them would recognize the term. To me, composition prepares students to be flexible, agile writers who are able to successfully adjust their writing to a variety of situations

R18 The interaction between their writing The interaction between their writing purpose, message, audience and tone. purpose, message, audience and tone.

R19 awareness of purpose, audience, medium awareness of purpose, audience, medium

R20 Audience awareness is probably one of the In personal written documents, I believe most obvious elements in rhetorical genre will be important. Students generally knowledge. Allowing students have an implicit and intuitive knowledge opportunities to become more aware of about genres, but they may not be explicitly their audience will be useful when they aware of it. They write every day and move into other professional fields. Their "know" the conventions of certain genres use of tone, register, vocabulary, and even (texting, emailing, writing blogs) even emoticons/emojis in their writing will be without instruction on genre awareness. deliberate and thoughtful. Emails, proposals, and collaborative projects all require a high level of audience awareness.

R21 The ability to read and understand other I would like for students to always think people's rhetoric. The ability to adapt their about persona, purpose, and audience in own writing to various situations, discourse personal documents, but it has been my communities, and purposes experience that they either don't know they need to do this or they don't bother to take the time to craft these documents, particularly regarding email messages.

R22 Understanding the purpose and audience of Audience awareness (if by personal written their written and spoken work. Former documents you mean blogs and social students tell me they use work from my media posts) class in their day to day writing--in state jobs and as teachers and administrators (elementary-college)understanding

R23 Situational analysis, genre analysis Implicit situational analysis

R24 I anticipate students to be aware of In addition to the above information, audiences, purposes, and contexts in students need to know their documents are creating and comprehending texts, public and may be read by others essentially, understand the genre that students are writing.

R25 Audience awareness Purpose

R26 I anticipate students using an understanding I anticipate students using an understanding of purpose most frequently in their future of purpose most frequently in their future careers careers

R27 Understanding the needs and expectations Understanding the needs and expectations of the audience; adjusting their tone and of the audience; adjusting their tone and appeals to fit these needs and expectations. appeals to fit these needs and expectations.

R28 Establishing credibility with their audience Using the language of the tribe and providing evidence to support their claims

References

Adler-Kassner, Linda, Clark, Irene, Robertson, Liane, Taczak, Kara, & Yancey, Kathleen

Blake. (2015). Assembling knowledge: The role of threshold concepts in

facilitating transfer. In Chris M. Anson and Jessie L. Moore (Eds.) Critical

Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer, (pp. 17-47). Retrieved from

https://wac.colostate.edu/books/

ansonmoore/chapter1.pdf.

Anson, Chris M. (2015). Crossing thresholds: What's to know about writing across the

curriculum? In Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle (Eds.), Naming what

we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies, (pp. 203-219). Logan: Utah State

University Press.

Banks, Adam. (2015, December). 2015 CCCC chair’s address: Ain’t no walls behind the

sky, baby! Funk, flight, freedom. CCC, 67(2), 267-279. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CCC/0672-

dec2015/CCC0672Address.pdf

Bazerman, Charles. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the

experimental article in science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/bazerman_shaping/shaping.pdf

Bazerman, Charles. (1992). From cultural criticism to disciplinary participation: Living

with powerful words. In Anne Herrington & Charles Moran (Eds.), Writing,

teaching, and learning the disciplines, (pp. 61-68). Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 312601388

Bazerman, Charles. (2011). Standpoints: The disciplined interdisciplinarity of writing

studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(1), 8-21. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23050587

Bean, John. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing,

critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berlin, James A. (1984). Writing instruction in nineteenth-century American colleges.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Berlin, James A. (1992). Poststructuralism, cultural studies, and the composition

classroom: Postmodern theory in practice. Rhetoric Review, 11(1), 16-33.

Blaauw-Hara, Mark. (2014). Transfer theory, threshold concepts, and first-year

composition: Connecting writing courses to the rest of the college. Teaching

English in the Two Year College, 41(4), 354-365.

Boeije, Hennie. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the

analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36, 391-409. Retrieved

from http://qualquant.org/wp-content/uploads/text/Boeije%202002-1.pdf

Crowley, Sharon. (2006). Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and fundamentalism.

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Retrieved from https://quod-lib-

umich-edu.proxy.lib.csus.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb09326.0001.001

Downs, Doug, & Robertson, Liane. (2015). Threshold concepts in first-year composition.

In Linda Adler-Kassner & Elizabeth Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know:

Threshold concepts of writing studies, (pp. 105-121). Logan, UT: Utah State

University Press.

Driscoll, D., & Wells, J. (2012). Beyond knowledge and skills: Writing transfer and the

role of student dispositions in and beyond the writing classroom. Composition

Forum, 26. Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/beyond-

knowledge-skills.php

Elon statement on writing transfer. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.centerfor

engagedlearning.org/elon-statement-on-writing-transfer/

Graff, Nelson. (2010). Teaching rhetorical analysis to promote transfer of learning.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 376-385. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614571

Hassel, Holly, & Giordano, Joanne Baird. (2009). Transfer institutions, transfer of

knowledge: The development of rhetorical adaptability and underprepared

writers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 37(1), 24-40.

Hayes, Hogan, Ferris, Dana R., & Whithaus, Carl. (2015). Dynamic transfer in

first year writing and “writing in the disciplines” settings. In Chris M. Anson &

Jessie L. Moore (Eds.), Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer

(pp. 181-213). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/ansonmoore/

chapter7.pdf

Herrington, Anne. (1981). Writing to learn: Writing across the disciplines. In Terry

Myers Zawacki & Paul M. Rogers (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A

Critical Sourcebook (pp. 118-127). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Knoblauch, C. H. (1985). Modern rhetorical theory and its future directions. In Ben W.

McClelland & Timothy R. Donovan (Eds.), Perspectives on research and

scholarship in composition (pp. 26-44). New York: Modern Language

Association of America.

Linton, Patricia, Madigan, Robert, & Johnson, Susan. (1994). Introducing students to

disciplinary genres: The role of the general composition course. Language and

Learning Across the Disciplines, 1(2), 63-78. Retrieved from

https://wac.colostate.edu/llad/ v1n2/linton.pdf

Melzer, Dan. (2009). Writing assignments across the curriculum: A national study of

college writing. In Terry Myers Zawacki & Paul M. Rogers (Eds.), Writing across

the curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 128-145). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.

Moore, Jessie L. & Anson, Chris M. (2015). Introduction. In Chris M. Anson and Jessie

L. Moore (Eds.) Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer, 3-13.

Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/ansonmoore/intro.pdf

Nowacek, Rebecca. (2011). Agents of integration: Understanding transfer as a rhetorical

act. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Perkins, David. N., & Salomon, Gavriel. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational

Leadership, 46(1), 22–32. Retrieved from ttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ376242

Poe, Mya, Lerner, Neal, & Craig, Jennifer. (2010). Learning to communicate in science

And engineering: Case studies from MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reiff, Mary J., & Bawarshi, Anis. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use

prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year

composition. Written Communication, 28(3), 312-337. SAGE, doi:

10.1177/0741088311410183

Russell, David R. (2002). The writing-across-the-curriculum movement: 1970-1990. In

Terry Myers Zawacki & Paul M. Rogers (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A

critical sourcebook (pp. 118-127). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Thaiss, Christopher, and Davis, Rick. (1998) Writing About Theater. George Mason

University: Pearson.

Thaiss, Christopher, and Hess, John. (1999). Writing for Law Enforcement. Allyn and

Bacon.

Thaiss, Christopher, & Zawacki, Terry Myers. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic

disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Portsmouth, NH:

Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Thaiss, Christopher, & McLeod, Susan H. (2015). The pedagogy of writing in the

discipline and across the curriculum. In Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper Taggart, Kurt

Schick, & H. Brooke Hessler (Eds.), A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, (pp.

283-300). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wardle, Elizabeth. (2007). Understanding ‘Transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary Results of a

Longitudinal Study. WPA 31(1,2). Retrieved from http://writingaboutwriting.

umassd.wikispaces.net/file/view/Wardle-+Transfer.pdf/278764734/

Wardle-+Transfer.pdf

Wardle, Elizabeth, & Clement, Nicolette M. (2015). Double binds and consequential

transitions: Considering matters of identity during moments of rhetorical

challenge. In Chris M. Anson & Jessie L. Moore (Eds.), Critical Transitions:

Writing and the Question of Transfer, (pp. 161-179). Retrieved from

https://wac.colostate.edu/books/ansonmoore/chapter6.pdf

Yancey, Kathleen, Robertson, Liane, & Taczak, Kara. (2014). Writing across contexts:

Transfer, Composition, and sites of writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University

Press.