Research on Composition: Multiple Perspectives on Two Decades of Change

Peter Smagorinsky’s anthology, Research on Composition: Multiple Perspectives on Two Decades of Change (hereafter referred to as Research on Composition) is an excellent text chronicling writing research from 1984 to 2003. As he points out in the volume’s overview, prior to the work of writing researchers like Donald Graves, most studies of writing were quantitative.  Smagorinsky writes: “[T]he research reviewed in [Research on Composition] reflects this more inclusive view of what composition is and how one might investigate and write about it” (p. 3).

Research on Composition does contain a disappointment however.  In the chapter entitled “Second-Language Composition Teaching and Learning,” Ilona Leki, et al., report that there has been a tremendous amount of research in second–language (L2) composition teaching and learning during the past 20 years. So much research, they say, that a book rather than a chapter would be needed to cover all of it. Scholars who wish to explore the research in L2 composition teaching and learning will find the information in this chapter sketchy at best. Interestingly, most of the studies have focused on descriptions of L2 programs rather than whether the studies are in fact effective. It might have been more realistic to either put this information in a separate book or include an annotated bibliography. The authors do, however, conclude the chapter with 13 pages of references where scholars can find more definitive answers to their questions regarding L2 composition.   

Research on Composition is divided into 10 chapters:  The first five focus on student writing from preschool to postsecondary, and the remaining five focus on teacher research, second-language issues, rhetoric research, family and community literacies, professional writing and historical studies. This review concentrates on research that adds to the body of knowledge in the field of composition teaching and learning and outlines the areas where the authors claim additional research is needed.

Several issues stand out in each of the areas. Some that are particularly prevalent are as follows:  First, although there have been changes in the teaching of writing, many things remain the same.  For example, Hillocks indicates that students have begun to write more multi-paragraph compositions rather than short answer and fill-in-the-blank tasks. Also, teachers spend more time preparing students for the task of writing, more attention is being paid to the importance of audience, prewriting and brainstorm activities are promoted, and emphasis is placed on the importance of revision rather than merely editing. However, Anagnostopoulos (2003) found that in some Chicago classrooms, class discussions of novels were limited to regurgitating events and answering literal questions.  Kahn (2000) studied quizzes, unit tests, final exams and composition assignments and found that most of the questions were presented as either multiple choice, matching, or true and false.  In another instance, students were asked to discuss symbols in the novel A Separate Peace. Kahn explained: “[S]tudents did not have to judge whether something was a symbol, explain why something is a symbol, or analyze the effect or meaning of the symbol” [emphasis mine] (p. 61).

A second issue discussed is the need to consider social and political issues in the writing classroom.  For example, all of the teacher researchers focused on helping students to understand the real world.  For example, Vazquez (1994; 2000; 2004) led her students in researching and writing about some hard questions, e.g., “[W]hy do we have French class when no one in our class is French, but we have lots of kids who speak Chinese?” (p.129).

A third issue involves the difficulties involved with the assessment of writing. All states conduct writing exams except for Illinois, which dropped its program in mid-2005. However, very few studies have been done to determine the effectiveness of these assessments.  Hillocks (2002) examined the assessments in five states. Among other things, he found that “a few states require portfolios of writing but only Kentucky used them to assess individual schools, and although Oregon requires portfolios for students, they are not used to evaluate writing.

The fourth issue examines the difficulty of preparing students for writing in the workplace.  Freedman’s (1984) study involved giving writing teachers anonymous texts written by students and professional writers.  Teachers graded the professional writers lower than the students because “the discourse conventions were not the ones they held their students to” (p. 228).  Unlike classroom writing, workplace writing is also inextricably tied to socialization.  Successful composition requires observing others’ languages and seeking help from those who are astute in grammar and effective writing style.  According to Nystrand (1986), “what is ‘correct’ or ‘good’ depends on the social context – the activity system, or discourse community, or genre at hand” (p. 232).  

The final issue involves whether the academic writing teacher can prepare students for workplace writing. Freedman (1993; 1995) says no.  Other researcher and practitioners say yes if students engage in meaningful writing, writing suited for either universities, corporations, or writing that examines corporate rhetoric.  The writing must be task specific, require students to conduct research, and apply social and thinking skills.  Writing in academia should reach “beyond goals of achieving grades, diplomas, and so on” and create “within classroom contexts a community of writers, engaged in projects both individually and collectively meaningful, for audiences beyond the teacher and purposes in addition to course credits (Bazerman, 1997).

As stated earlier, another important observation in Research on Composition is that certain areas of the discipline need further research. In the chapter entitled, “Preschool Through Elementary Writing,” Chapman suggests that more longitudinal studies are needed; and furthermore, that “more research is needed in the content areas at the elementary level, especially to investigate writing in relation to instruction and curricular contexts of the classroom, and that researchers need to investigate the influences of context, task, and genre on cognitive dimensions of children’s writing processes.”  Other areas where research is needed are “social and cultural contexts of classrooms …issues of gender and culture in relation to children’s writing and their development as writers…. [and] preschool and elementary children’s writing in nonacademic settings and out-of-school contexts” (p. 40).

Smagorinsky and Whiting (1995) made a most disturbing discovery about English education programs they surveyed.  “Even courses devoted to writing tended to be workshops for students to work on their own writing rather than courses in the teaching of writing (p. 74).  In his discussion of writing at the postsecondary level, Durst postures that scholars in the U.S. need to become more aware “of the growing body of research on writing in international contexts (p. 99).

Fecho, et al., authors of the chapter on “Teacher Research in Writing Classrooms,” claim that teacher researchers seem to believe that literacy is of no use if people cannot use it to solve the issues and problems they face everyday.  However, the authors point out that this kind of research is being marginalized by the No Child Left Behind legislation that demands “scientifically based,” “stated hypotheses,” “valid and reliable” measures, and “rigorous, objective and scientific” review, certainly a sad situation that should not preclude the valuable research that the teacher-as-researcher brings to the table.

As for family and community literacies, Cushman, et al. point out that much more needs to be done on the level of institutional critique and change, focusing on how to create better classrooms and larger institutions.  And, there needs to be more collaboration between community and academia.  Russell makes several excellent suggestions for historical research.  They are:

More archival research, even from the methods of quantitative social history….[more] explicit debate …among authors… [regarding] one another’s work to show where they agree, disagree, add, modify and so on….[and] senior historians to undertake the important work of synthesis, to create work accessible to beginners in the field and stakeholders beyond it (p. 267).

According to Leki et al. there are two areas where there was surprisingly little research regarding L2 students:  how curriculum content directly relates to L2 student writing achievements and how effective particular approaches to L2 instruction have been.

Again, except for the chapter, “Second-Language Composition Teaching and Learning,” Research on Composition: Multiple Perspectives on Two Decades of Change is an excellent chronicle of composition research conducted during the past 40 years, one that every scholar in and out of academia should read.

References

Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement in urban classrooms: A Multilayered approach.  Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 177-212.

Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop & G. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp. 19-26), Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Freedman, S.W. (1984). The registers of student and professional expository writing: Influence on teachers’ responses. In R. Beach & L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New Directions in composition research (pp. 334-347), New York: Guilford Press.

Freedman, S.W. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of New genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-251.

Freedman, S.W. (1995). The what, where, when, why, and how of classroom genres. (In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 121-144) Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Hillocks, G., Jr (2002). The testing trap: How state assessments of writing control Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kahn, E. A. (2000). A case study of assessment in a grade 10 English course. Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 276-286.

Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando: Academic Press.

Smagorinsky, P., & Whiting, M.E. (1995). How English teachers get taught: Methods of teaching the methods class. Urbana, IL.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Vasquez, V. (1994). A step in the dance of critical literacy. UKRA Reading, 28(1) 39-43.

Vasquez, V. (2000). Our way: Using the everyday to create a critical literacy curriculum. Primary Voices K-6 9(2), 8-13.

Vasquez, V.  2004). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.