Examining college writing readiness

This article was downloaded by: [USC University of Southern California]On: 18 June 2014, At: 13:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Examining College Writing ReadinessJulia C. Duncheona & William G. Tierneya

a Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, LosAngeles, California, USAPublished online: 16 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Julia C. Duncheon & William G. Tierney (2014) Examining College Writing Readiness,The Educational Forum, 78:3, 210-230, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2014.912712

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2014.912712

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131725.2014.912712

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2014.912712

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Educational Forum, 78: 210–230, 2014Copyright © Kappa Delta PiISSN: 0013-1725 print/1938-8098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00131725.2014.912712

Address correspondence to Julia C. Duncheon, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 703A, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Increasing postsecondary access depends in large part on enhancing under-

represented students’ writing ability, or college writing readiness. However,

what exactly constitutes college-level writing is not clear-cut, complicating

efforts to improve secondary preparation. This article examines recent efforts

to defi ne postsecondary writing, suggesting that existing defi nitions and as-

sessments overwhelmingly focus on cognitive skills. Drawing from sociocul-

tural theory, the authors advocate for broadening conceptions of college-level

writing to consider the role of social, cultural, and institutional contexts.

Key words: college-level writing, sociocultural theory, writing remediation.

Although a higher proportion of high school graduates from all backgrounds is entering postsecondary education, many low-income, fi rst-generation students drop out prior to graduation (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2012; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). Scholars have thus emphasized the need to enhance high school students’ academic preparation (Perna, 2005), particularly in writing (Adelman, 2006). Because college courses across disciplines rely heavily on composition for student evalua-tion, writing profi ciency equips students to persist to graduation (Conley, 2007). Yet many students—especially those graduating from low-performing high schools—do not acquire advanced writing skills prior to college matriculation. As Marlink and Wahleithner (2011) claimed, “For under-represented, traditionally non-college bound students, academic writing . . . is a gatekeeper” (p. 1).

Our concern is how the construct of college-level writing has been defi ned and understood, specifi cally in relation to underrepresented youth. We aim to challenge the theoretical assumptions that undergird dominant conceptions of postsecondary com-position—which largely view writing as a set of skills—and in turn shape institutional

Examining College Writing Readiness

Julia C. Duncheon and William G. TierneyRossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014


The Educational Forum • Volume 78 • 2014 • 211

approaches to assessment and remediation. We purposefully have not situated this analysis as an instrumental text in composition studies. Rather, we argue for a framework that reconceptualizes college readiness in writing by acknowledging sociocultural contexts.

RationalePoor writing performance confi nes many underrepresented students to remediation,

which can present a signifi cant roadblock to graduation (Kirst & Venezia, 2001). Remedia-tion refers to non-credit bearing coursework designed for incoming students who have not demonstrated college-ready skills. Large numbers of entering students require remediation: nationally, about 50% of students entering two-year colleges and 20% of students entering four-year institutions enroll in remedial courses each year (Complete College America, 2012). Low-income students of color and graduates of low-performing high schools are dispropor-tionately represented in remedial coursework (Rosenbaum & Becker, 2011; Strayhorn, 2011).

In addition to the sheer numbers of students requiring remediation, concern exists over how remedial students are identifi ed and whether programs are effective (Bettinger & Long, 2009; Calcagno & Long, 2008). College-level work is diffi cult to defi ne, complicating efforts to establish remedial placement benchmarks (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006). Placement exams are often inconsistent predictors of academic performance, and evidence suggests that some colleges may be over-remediating students (Elliot, Deess, Rudiny, & Joshi, 2012). Research on remediation’s effectiveness is inconclusive; while some scholars have found that remediation positively impacts educational outcomes (Bet-tinger & Long, 2009), others have contended that remedial coursework fails to facilitate advancement into credit-bearing courses (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010; Calcagno & Long, 2008) or enhance writing profi ciency (Aiken, West, Schwalm, Carroll, & Hsuing, 1998).

Remediation plays a pivotal role in college access because remedial placement has traditionally served as a metric for assessing students’ college readiness (Hooker & Brand, 2010; Maruyama, 2012). This logic assumes that if students place out of remediation based on standardized test scores, grade point average (GPA), or placement tests administered by their institution, they are ready for college. Students are therefore considered college ready in writing if they enroll in a credit-bearing English class (Elliot et al., 2012; Yancey, 1999). However, research on student development and attrition has revealed that factors other than cognitive performance affect persistence (Sedlacek, 2004; Tinto, 1993). Psychosocial processes play a fundamental role in college success, particularly for underrepresented youth (Aries & Seider, 2005; Sedlacek, 2004). Tinto (1993) reported that academic failure accounts for only 15–25% of dropouts; most students leave for other reasons, including diffi culty integrating into their college community. A more recent study by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) found that only 10% of students who dropped out prior to degree completion had less than a “C” GPA (Johnson, 2012). Given that non-cognitive, contextual factors play a larger role in attrition than academic problems, scores on arbi-trary assessments may not capture the range of skills and knowledge that enable college success (Colyar & Stich, 2011; Maruyama, 2012).

Indeed, college readiness encompasses more than academic or cognitive competencies such as familiarity with college culture and fi nancial aid (Conley, 2007; Hooker & Brand,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

212 • The Educational Forum • Volume 78 • 2014

Duncheon and Tierney

2010). Rather than using remedial placement to measure readiness, the question becomes: What competencies enable persistence to graduation? Yet, approaches to assessment and remediation remain overwhelmingly focused on cognitive ability. Researchers have prob-lematized remedial writing assessments for focusing too narrowly on instrumental knowl-edge and establishing restrictive conditions for composing, such as de-contextualized prompts and limited time (Huot, 1996; Yancey, 1999). Exam formats and circumstances refl ect neither the evidence-based recommendations from composition scholarship nor the process of writing in college. As more students enter higher education and writing diffi culty impedes educational attainment for underrepresented youth, current testing remedies fail to capture the complexities inherent in college composition.

We propose that these assessment challenges may be attributed in part to the lack of consensus around what college-level writing is. Developing constructive ways to assess students’ profi ciency requires a clearer understanding of the complex factors that comprise postsecondary composition and shape students’ capacity to write. We suggest the need for a comprehensive college writing framework. Previous models for college writing have sparked criticism (Blau, 2006; Gunner, 2006; Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012). Critics have maintained that in delineating concrete categories and defi nitions, frameworks under-mine the fl uid and humanistic nature of composition (Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012) and may ignore the needs of diverse learners (Gunner, 2006). Blau (2006) contended that writing models support bureaucratic effi ciency but fail to predict student performance or positively impact policy development.

We suggest that writing frameworks are not inherently problematic. Rather, the limi-tations of writing models stem from their underlying theoretical assumptions, which are exclusively cognitive. Cognitive composition theory conceptualizes writing as a set of acontextual skills and strategies that learners must master (Durst, 1990). Existing frame-works therefore ignore the social, political, and economic contexts in which writers com-pose. We illustrate the sole reliance of writing models on cognitive theory using a recent example, the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (2011), which was published in collaboration by the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), the National Council of Teacher of English (NCTE), and the National Writing Project (NWP). Although this framework represents an impressive effort to create a more comprehensive defi ni-tion of college writing, its exclusively cognitive assumptions have drawn some critique.

We recommend constructing a framework that moves beyond the notion of writing as a set of reifi ed skills by drawing from sociocultural theory. This perspective does not deny the importance of cognitive processes, but situates skill development within the broader social, cultural, and institutional contexts that shape students’ acquisition of academic literacy. We suggest that sociocultural research may inform the development of a college writing framework that resists oversimplifi cations. Although our analysis focuses on writing development, the cognitive emphasis in composition refl ects a broader institu-tional bias that drives assessment, placement, and remediation. The assumed association of academic success with cognitive ability pervades educational policy (Lemann, 1999). Social, cultural, and political contexts that privilege particular students at the expense of others are often ignored. We advocate for reconceptualizing college-ready writing to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



acknowledge sociocultural contexts. In so doing, we assert the need to understand educa-tional outcomes as products of a complex web of historical, institutional, and individual infl uences. By conceptualizing writing as fl uid, nuanced, and context-based, a sociocul-tural model may illuminate weaknesses in current testing regimes and encourage more localized and fl exible approaches to writing assessment.

We acknowledge that cognitive studies of writing play an integral role in improving teaching and learning. We suggest, however, that cognitive approaches alone are insuf-fi cient to address the needs of diverse writers, particularly given that academic writing poses challenges for so many low-income, fi rst-generation students. The sociocultural ideas we express are not entirely new; scholars have long emphasized the importance of writers’ contexts. What we propose is the need to integrate these recommendations within policy efforts to defi ne and assess college writing readiness. Our goal is not to outline the tenets of a new framework. Rather, we call attention to the importance of sociocultural features of writing that are currently absent so that further research might eventually put forth a new framework.

Approach College access scholarship includes studies of higher education that examine barriers

to postsecondary enrollment and persistence, particularly for fi rst generation students. The term composition studies encompasses research from a range of fi elds related to writing and literacy such as rhetoric, linguistics, literature, and education. We limited our search to studies published in a peer-reviewed journal or associated with a major research university, institute, or foundation.

This analysis was motivated by our interest in better understanding what constitutes college-level writing at a time when poor writing ability impedes postsecondary degree attainment for many students. A Google Scholar search early in the research process un-earthed the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (CWPA, NCTE, & NWP, 2011). Our appraisal of this document and the accompanying symposium published in College

English, in which numerous scholars responded to the Framework, spurred further inves-tigation into the cognitive and sociocultural theoretical frameworks that underlie much composition research. Critiques of the Framework fell into two broad themes, oversimpli-fi cation and defi cit thinking, which directed our subsequent inquiry.

In obtaining information on college access, remediation, and college-readiness, we utilized variations of the following search terms: “college readiness,” “remedial place-ment,” “remedial assessments,” and “remedial writing.” Because remediation is often referred to as developmental education (Parker, Bustillos, & Behringer, 2010), the term “developmental” was used interchangeably with “remedial” in our searches. We sought articles specifi c to composition and defi ning composition that spanned secondary and postsecondary settings, using search tags such as “writing frameworks,” “postsecondary writing,” “college composition,” “high school writing,” and “writing preparation.” Inde-pendent searches were conducted to identify theoretical works delineating cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, for which “cognitive composition theory” and “sociocultural theory” served as the primary search tags. Further sociocultural literature was sought

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



using two-tiered searches, involving the term “sociocultural theory” and “high school writing,” “college composition,” or variations of those phrases. Two emergent themes were the importance of context and the recognition of nonmainstream literacies, which provided content for the second half of the analysis.

Cognitive and Sociocultural Frameworks: Two Theoretical PerspectivesTwo principal theoretical perspectives have emerged in writing research, which we

defi ne as cognitive and sociocultural (Durst, 1990; Nystrand, 2006). Research from the cognitive perspective focuses on identifying the mental processes of individual writers. Scholars have sought to “explicate the cognitive structure of writing processes that trans-formed thought and agency into text” (Nystrand, 2006, p. 12). Drawing from theorists such as Piaget and Chomsky, writing researchers have developed instructional practices that enhance cognitive skills based on understandings of how students think. Scholars have also drawn from the work of psycholinguistics to identify writing rules and grammatical structures. The principal assumption is that writing is a cognitive process that takes place within individual writers.

A more recent trend in writing research shifts emphasis from the cognitive to the contextual, or sociocultural (Juzwik et al., 2006; Nystrand, 2006). Sociocultural theory suggests that cognition and activity are situated in social, cultural, and historical contexts (Prior, 2006). The values and experiences that characterize students’ social environments mediate literacy development. Writing is dialogic and collaborative, based on social negotiations and shared use of language (Juzwik et al., 2006; Newell et al., 2011). This perspective focuses “on the nature of the environments in which writers write and learn to write—the home, school, workplace, and community—and the relationships between these environments and writers’ development” (Durst, 1990, p. 400). The assumption is that writing cannot be discussed without reference to the social context in which it takes place (Langer, 2001; Sperling, 1996).

Sociocultural theory is especially useful for investigating the writing development of students from nondominant cultural backgrounds (Farr, 1986; Prior, 2006). Literacy instruction in American classrooms is based on Standard English, but communities adopt various social, cultural, and linguistic values and practices (Sperling, 1996). Individual students understand academic writing and respond to writing instruction differently. Given the potential dissonance between students’ linguistic experiences in- and out-of-school (Prior, 2006; Worthman, Gardner, & Thole, 2011), learning environments are critical for academic writing development. Much sociocultural writing research there-fore examines how classroom and school contexts can support collaborative writing practices (Prior, 2006).

Recent scholarship has suggested that cognitive and sociocultural perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement and interact with one another (Juzwik et al., 2006; Newell et al., 2011). While cognitive research has elucidated the mental pro-cesses and skills required for writing production, sociocultural studies show how these processes and skills are context-laden. Newell et al. (2011) explained that approaching writing as a social practice “is not to deny the role of cognitive and linguistic processes”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



(p. 288), but instead to examine the infl uences of social interactions and institutions in which students write.

The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing: An ExamplePublished in 2011 by the CWPA, NCTE, and NWP, the Framework for Success in Post-

secondary Writing outlines the skills, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences that facilitate students’ writing success in college. First, it presents eight “habits of mind,” which signify intellectual and practical ways of approaching learning and writing across disciplines: curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity, persistence, responsibility, fl exibility, and metacognition. The Framework then suggests that teachers can help students develop these habits of mind through particular writing, reading, and critical analysis experiences. These fi ve writing experiences are outlined in Table 1.

The Framework is useful in identifying habits of mind and learning experiences that support students in producing academic writing (Hansen, 2012; Sullivan, 2012); the fi ve experiences outlined in the Framework exclusively refl ect recommendations from cognitive composition research. First, as captured in the rhetorical knowledge category, postsecondary students must adjust their writing to the demands of multiple contexts, audiences, and purposes (Knodt, 2006; Thompson & Wilson, 2002; Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). Profi cient college writing also demonstrates critical thinking and analysis (Condon & Kelly-Riley, 2004; Downs & Wardle, 2007; Klein & Rose, 2010). Third, the writing pro-cess has consistently been identifi ed as an effective strategy for teaching and producing composition (Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Sandmel, 2011; Klein, Boman, & Prince, 2007). Professors expect students to exhibit a strong command of conventions in their written work, such as writing fl uency, mechanics, and proper use of citations (Callan, Finney, Kirst, Usdan, & Venezia, 2006; Griffi n, Falberg, & Krygier, 2010; Sullivan, 2006). College composition requires profi cient engagement with technology to obtain information and produce assignments (Cavdar & Doe, 2012; Collier & Morgan, 2008). The Framework thus outlines writing competencies that—while essential—are isolated from the context of the writer, portraying composition as merely a cognitive undertaking (Severino, 2012; Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012).

Table 1. Reading, Writing, and Critical Thinking Experiences From the Framework

Experiences Defi nition provided in the Framework

Developing rhetorical knowledge

The ability to analyze and act on understandings of audiences, purposes, and contexts in creating and comprehending texts

Developing critical thinking The ability to analyze a situation or text and make thoughtful decisions based on that analysis, through writing, reading, and research

Developing fl exible writing processes

Multiple strategies to approach and undertake writing and research

Developing knowledge of conventions

The formal and informal guidelines that defi ne what is considered to be correct and appropriate, or incorrect and inappropriate, in a piece of writing

Composing in multiple environments

From traditional pen and paper to electronic technologies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Limitations of Cognitive AssumptionsConceptualizing college writing as solely cognitive creates two unintended conse-

quences, including (a) oversimplifying writing and (b) potentially perpetuating defi cit thinking.

Oversimplifi ed view of writing. Scholars have contended that the Framework oversimplifi es composition by ignoring the deeper signifi cance and contexts of writing (Hansen, 2012; Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012). Summerfi eld and Anderson (2012) argued that sets of guidelines fail to depict writing as a meaningful social endeavor: “Writing as a struggle to make sense of the world has been replaced with formal knowledge about writing” (p. 546). Composition appears simplistic and superfi cial (Hansen, 2012). As Gunner (2006) wrote, “When we reify writing, we tacitly endorse a set of beliefs that assume a generic shape as common sense” (p. 118), and writing becomes a commodity. Hansen (2012) similarly rejected the notion that writing can be quantifi ed or measured because learning is integral to personal growth: “Education is the development of certain kinds of people” (p. 540). A catalog of cognitive skills cannot capture the process of meaning making and self-discovery that writing facilitates.

The cognitive emphasis of the Framework also ignores the role of sociocultural contexts in students’ academic writing development. Severino (2012) critiqued the exclusion of social, emotional, and citizenship skills that contribute to writing profi ciency. Further, because “students differ in their access to those teachers, courses, and schools that nur-ture these habits and engineer these experiences” (Severino, 2012, p. 535), attention to social relationships and classroom communities is needed. Many low-performing high schools cannot offer the same opportunities for college writing preparation as their high-performing counterparts, and these schools tend to serve larger proportions of linguistic minorities (Severino, 2012). By neglecting contextual factors that mediate students’ writ-ing development, the model implicitly assumes that students have equal access to the essential habits of mind and experiences. Thus, the cognitive perspective alone engenders an overly simplistic conception of postsecondary writing.

Perpetuation of defi cit thinking. Depicting college writing exclusively according to cogni-tive assumptions may also inadvertently reinforce defi cit views that regard low-income students of color as defi cient. Without reference to contextual factors that create inequi-table learning opportunities, cognitive models place the responsibility for being college writing ready on the student. Although the Framework recommends that classroom teachers provide students with designated learning experiences, these experiences are described as skills or understandings that students possess. For instance, critical thinking is defi ned as “the ability to analyze a situation or text and make thoughtful decisions based on that analysis” (CWPA et al., 2011, p. 6); a college ready student has this skill, while a not-ready student does not. This framing portrays postsecondary writing as a separate, almost tangible entity that resides within individual learners. Similarly, the Framework’s list format depicts the desired character traits and behaviors as static, or even innate (Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012). As a result, “student ‘failure’ could be explained away as personal failings of students,” who may be accused of being lazy, lacking creativity, or refusing to take responsibility for their learning (Summerfi eld &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Anderson, 2012, p. 545). The cognitive conception of writing may therefore encourage defi cit thinking, in which underachievement is attributed to problems inherent in indi-vidual students (Valencia, 1997).

In addition, framing postsecondary writing as a set of cognitive skills and behaviors suggests—albeit implicitly—that only one form of literacy exists. Admittedly, educational institutions and academic discourses privilege a specifi c form of literacy (Prior, 2006). Yet the Framework does not acknowledge the value of cultural and linguistic diversity or the potential for students to possess multiple literacies (Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012). Students who cannot demonstrate the specifi ed writing skills may be considered not only defi cient but also illiterate. As increasing numbers of college students are nontradi-tional and represent a range of racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Rosenbaum & Becker, 2011), cognitive writing models may unintentionally privilege mainstream students.

Sociocultural Contributions to Writing ResearchContributions from sociocultural research that may improve existing writing frame-

works are presented in two sections. We discuss how sociocultural theory fi rst offers a more nuanced view of writing, and then challenges defi cit thinking about non-mainstream students.

Nuanced View of WritingSociocultural literature portrays a more nuanced view of writing in two ways. First,

writing is framed as a social activity tied to identity formation. Second, writing develop-ment is mediated by social, cultural, and institutional contexts.

Social and personal signifi cance. From the sociocultural perspective, writing is intrinsically social and transformative. Composition is a vehicle for understanding the world, inspiring action, and affecting change (Langer, 2001; Sullivan, 2006). Because students establish rela-tionships with institutions through the discourses they employ (Newell et al., 2011), writing provides a platform for analyzing and challenging systems of power (Kucer, 2005).

Sociocultural researchers have situated writing within a broader understanding of literacy as a set of social, cultural, historical, and ideological tools or practices (Street, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978). Literacy practices represent the beliefs, values, purposes, and discourses that infl uence people’s engagement with literacy. Consequently, writing development can-not be isolated from social factors such as race, class, gender, age, and culture (Gorlewski, 2011). Simply put, writing is linked to identity (Gee, 1996; Harklau, 2000). Faircloth (2009) defi ned identity as “a negotiated, fl uid, multifaceted sense of one’s perspectives and values, a fl uid and purposeful positioning, constantly shaped by the affordances and constraints of one’s contexts” (p. 326). By positioning individuals within particular contexts and dis-courses, writing infl uences identity formation (Ivanic, 1998): “Who people are, and who they are allowed to be, is shaped in part by the ways they use literacy” (Moje, 2000, p. 653).

Framing writing as a social and transformative practice calls attention to the complex process students endure to internalize cognitive skills. For example, composing requires

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



that students not simply organize information, but also engage deeply with content and connect with their inner speech (Gorlewski, 2011). Nonmainstream students, whose linguistic practices often differ from those used in schools, traverse complex identity negotiations through engagement with academic discourse. As Harklau (2003) wrote, “Learning to write in a second language is not simply the accrual of technical linguistic abilities but rather is intimately related to identity—how one sees oneself and is seen by others as a student, as a writer, and as an ethnolinguistic minority” (p. 155).

Contextualization. Sociocultural scholars have also maintained that literacy cannot be “divorced from the social, political, and economic climate in which readers and writers exist” (Durst, 2006, p. 89). Because contextual factors infl uence students’ ability to internalize cognitive writing processes, writing cannot be isolated within educational settings (Langer, 2001; Street, 2003). Rather, the circumstances and relationships that mediate adolescents’ writing development warrant examination (Ortmeier-Hooper, 2011).

Sociocultural research has explored how social, cultural, and political forces converge in school settings where students learn to write (MacBeth, 2006; Rose, 1989). Scholars have investigated the role of race, class, and gender in the politics of composition and the experiences of learners (Durst, 2006). Because educational institutions refl ect and le-gitimize the dominant culture (Bartlett & Holland, 2002; Carter, 2005), academic writing embodies the literacy structures, norms, and values of white, middle-class culture (Farr, 1986; Prior, 2006). Awareness of tacit cultural knowledge, such as teacher expectations, is necessary for writing profi ciently in educational settings—knowledge that nondominant students may not have when they enter the school building (MacBeth, 2006). One qualita-tive study explored how professors’ expectations infl uence the writing achievement of diverse college students (Collier & Morgan, 2008). Through a series of focus groups with 15 professors and 63 students at a large state university, Collier and Morgan (2008) found that unspoken teacher expectations created challenges for many nontraditional students. In contrast to their traditional counterparts, fi rst-generation participants reported being unaware that papers should be typed, deadlines are infl exible, or citations require particu-lar formatting. Though based on a small, nonrepresentative sample, fi ndings suggested that implicit cultural codes in educational institutions may differentially shape students’ capacity to achieve.

Notably, students who perceive congruence between their literacy practices and those of the school are likely to develop confi dence in their academic potential (Baxter & Brit-ton, 2001; Cox, 2009). By contrast, students who perceive their nonschool literate lives as oppositional to the school’s expectations may develop defeatist attitudes regarding their ability to write academically. Numerous social, cultural, and institutional factors com-plicate the capacity of many students to acquire cognitive writing skills. Participating in academic literacy for nondominant youth requires skillfully navigating social allegiances (Ivanic, 1998) and negotiating institutional expectations (MacBeth, 2006).

Sociocultural research aims to account for the socially situated meanings and broader contexts of writing often absent from cognitive perspectives. Writing development is necessarily nuanced, defying neat typifi cations or clear-cut guidelines.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Rejection of Defi cit ThinkingSociocultural perspectives counter defi cit thinking about nondominant youth in two

primary ways. The fi rst highlights and problematizes systemic power structures, and the second acknowledges students’ diverse literacy practices.

Institutional role in underachievement. Framing academic literacy as culturally, histori-cally, and politically bound suggests that attributing differences in writing performance to individual students is problematic (Klos, 2006). Sociocultural scholars have shown how the politics of higher education, assessment, and remediation marginalize low-income students of color and hinder their acquisition of academic literacy (Colyar & Stich, 2011; Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009). Students’ perceived academic weaknesses are reframed as ideological rather than intellectual or cultural (Durst, 2006).

Sociocultural research has suggested that defi cit views remain pervasive in educational research and practice (Gutiérrez et al., 2009). In the era of high-stakes accountability, K–16 institutional efforts to address the achievement gap have emphasized remedial interven-tions. Defi cit thinking is inherent in the term remediation, which derives from medical discourse and suggests the need for a “remedy” or “cure.” The underlying assumption is that low achievers are defi cient academically, socially, and culturally (Gutiérrez et al., 2009). Students tracked into remedial classes are labeled substandard, inadequate, and incapable (Rose, 1989). As Grimm (1996) purported, remediation in higher education represents a fi nal opportunity for students to “remove the traces of their educational and cultural backgrounds” (p. 530).

One study investigated the identity development of students participating in a three-week, remedial summer bridge writing program (Colyar & Stich, 2011). Through discourse analysis of 86 students’ essays, Colyar and Stich (2011) identifi ed rhetorical strategies, such as second-person pronouns and passive voice, that refl ected students’ hesitation to embrace academic identities. The researchers posited that the discourse of remediation complicated students’ identity negotiations; students had internalized notions of public stigma, defi cit, and difference. While interviews or focus groups may have strengthened the fi ndings, this study underscored how institutional practices may stigmatize underprepared students and in turn compromise their ability to compose (Gee, 1996). Sociocultural perspectives therefore challenge defi cit thinking by showing how educational systems perpetuate inequity and minimize opportunity for students from marginalized backgrounds.

Diverse literacies. Sociocultural research has further countered defi cit thinking by chal-lenging the restrictive binary between high and low cultural knowledge (Carter, 2005; Street, 1994). Scholars have portrayed students’ nonschool literacy practices as useful resources that are distinct from rather than inferior to academic discourse (Harklau, 2000; Prior, 2006). Developing nondominant students’ academic writing ability requires fi rst recognizing their unique literacy strengths (Moje, 2000; Rose, 1989). Framing students’ in- and out-of-school literacies as complementary rather than oppositional encourages students to embrace academic identities without rejecting their out-of-school selves (Gorlewski, 2011; Worthman et al., 2011). Classroom settings that emphasize discourse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



provide a forum for negotiating multiple literacy practices (Nystrand, 1997; Oakes & Lipton, 2006) and leveraging students’ cultural skills and knowledge (Anderson, Purcell-Gates, Gagné, & Jang, 2009).

One study underscored the value of nondominant students’ out-of-school literacies through inquiry into the lives of adolescent gang members (Moje, 2000). Over a three-year period, Moje gathered rich, qualitative data on the literacy practices of fi ve gang-connected youth in school and nonschool settings. Participants adopted socially situated literacy tools, such as graffi ti, poetry, and dress codes, to craft identities and construct meaning in the world. Though not sanctioned and rarely acknowledged in school, the gang’s literacy prac-tices enabled members to shape their social space. Moje also underscored the metalinguistic sophistication of gang-related literacy, which involved developing new codes, manipulating language, and adopting numerous discursive forms. Findings demonstrated the signifi cance of students’ nonschool literacy practices, students’ extensive linguistic knowledge, and the need for educators to utilize rather than dismiss students’ out-of-school discourses.

One approach to bridging students’ in- and out-of-school literacies emphasizes recog-nition, relevance, and renegotiation (Worthman et al., 2011). Drawing on a year of in-depth data collection from six students in an English classroom, Worthman et al. conveyed the potential of students’ nonmainstream literacy practices to inform their academic writing. For example, one participant resisted sharing his rap lyrics in class because they lacked correct punctuation and covered topics deemed inappropriate for school. However, his lyrics refl ected insightful social critiques of violence, poverty, and oppression that could have been meaningfully translated to academic discourse. By explicating the rules and structures of multiple discourses, acknowledging existing power structures, and “centering students and their out-of-school lives as content to be taken up in the writing classroom” (Worthman et al., 2011, p. 326), educators can empower marginalized youth to internalize academic literacy.

Sociocultural researchers have also pointed to the wealth of linguistic and cultural knowledge that English language learners possess (Trueba, 1990; Yi, 2010). Yi (2010) con-ducted a two-year, in-depth ethnographic study of a multilingual student who blurred distinctions between school and nonschool literacy contexts. The participant engaged in diverse writing activities in- and out-of-school, employing different languages—English, Korean, and Chinese characters—for different purposes. Yi (2010) argued for reframing students’ multilingualism as an asset rather than a barrier to participation in academic discourses. Trueba (1990) explored the centrality of culture in Latino students’ literacy development, suggesting the need to assess students’ writing ability based on students’ use of literacy in multiple contexts.

Table 2 reviews the cognitive limitations and sociocultural interventions discussed above.

Discussion and Future DirectionsWriting development involves more than the straightforward acquisition of cogni-

tive skills, particularly for underrepresented students who are often low-income and of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



color. Defi ning writing as a set of acontextual competencies creates oversimplifi cations and may inadvertently further defi cit views about marginalized youth. Sociocultural re-search complements the cognitive perspective by situating writing in broader contexts and reframing nondominant students as literate and capable. Yet while sociocultural scholars have affected positive change in classroom practice, a disconnect remains between the way writing is understood in this literature and the way writing is assessed at the institutional level. This problem persists, perhaps, because existing models that defi ne college writing and provide a foundation for assessments remain tied to cognitive theory.

The adherence to cognitive theory in both the defi nition and assessment of postsecond-ary writing is unsurprising, however, for several reasons. First, academic performance has historically been equated with cognitive functioning, and assessments are designed to predict students’ likelihood of academic success (Lemann, 1999). Though scholars have highlighted the role of testing in reinforcing unequal systems of power (Fraizer, 2003; Lemann, 1999), the association of intelligence with academic success remains prevalent in the dominant discourse. College readiness has traditionally been viewed as a measure of academic prepa-ration and assessed by remedial placement exams (Hooker & Brand, 2010). The Framework may rely on cognitive theory in large part because it utilizes the narrow defi nition of college readiness; the authors outline attributes of composition that enable students to “enroll in credit-bearing, college-level courses” (CWPA et al., 2011, p. 2). Efforts to defi ne college-level writing take place within an institutional climate mired in cognitive views.

Second, cognitive features of writing are measurable, and thus easier to explicate than sociocultural factors. For instance, practitioners can distinguish whether students have written multiple drafts or submitted a fi nal essay devoid of mechanical errors. Evaluating whether a student has utilized critical thinking and engaged deeply with the content is more subjective, but surfaces in the text nonetheless. In contrast, the nuances of how broader contexts mediate students’ capacity to compose are diffi cult to convey. Frameworks that aim to establish standardized defi nitions naturally lend themselves to specifi able categories, which cognitive research provides. Despite the fact that cognitive models oversimplify the reality of composition and reinforce defi cit views, the notion that enhancing students’ readiness for college writing merely requires teaching a particular set of skills is politically appealing. That social, cultural, and political contexts intersect with writers’ identities in complex ways cannot be succinctly stated, measured, or translated into clear educational policies.

Table 2. Limitations of Cognitive Frameworks and Sociocultural Interventions

Limitations of cognitive frameworks Sociocultural interventions

• Oversimplifi ed view of writing• Minimizes social and personal signifi cance • Ignores external contexts

• Nuanced view of writing• Highlights social and personal signifi cance• Emphasizes role of contexts

• Perpetuation of defi cit model• Frames students as competent or incompetent• Ignores cultural and linguistic diversity

• Rejection of defi cit model• Reveals institutional role in underachievement• Underscores value in diverse literacies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Third, the current system of accountability implemented at the institutional level is designed to hold students responsible for their level of academic preparation (Burke, 2005). Students who arrive in college underprepared and fail the writing placement test will be enrolled in a remedial course. Consequently, although many underprepared writers graduate from low-performing high schools with minimal access to high quality literacy instruction, they face personal consequences for their inability to demonstrate profi ciency upon postsecondary entrance. This misalignment is not specifi c to composition but exists across subjects for which students may be assigned to remedial coursework. Accountability systems that penalize students rather than educational institutions encourage the devel-opment of writing frameworks that focus on learners’ mental processes. That cognitive writing models refl ect the traditional conception of academic ability is neither surprising nor dishonorable, as they aim to facilitate students’ success within the current context. However, because the present system of assessment and remediation tends to marginal-ize students with the least educational opportunity (Lemann, 1999), a cognitive model of writing that conforms to the status quo is unlikely to facilitate progress for all students.

Despite the limitations inherent in cognitive models, creating a framework for postsecondary composition is a worthy endeavor, especially at this point in time. The current political and economic context is characterized by an increased push for all high school students to pursue higher education (Obama, 2012), requiring the development of strategies that better support the needs of nontraditional college students. Although writing plays a fundamental role in facilitating students’ postsecondary success, much confusion exists around how to prepare students for college composition. Scholars have documented a divide between high school writing preparation and college writing expecta-tions (Addison & McGee, 2010; Beil & Knight, 2007; Fanetti, Bushrow, & DeWeese, 2010), which creates particular obstacles for students graduating from low-performing schools. A college writing framework is useful to create more transparency across secondary and postsecondary settings and minimize the writing gap.

We therefore suggest the need to develop a sociocultural writing framework that both highlights the cognitive processes required for advanced composition and acknowledges the external factors that mediate students’ acquisition of skills. The cognitive traits and strategies identifi ed in the Framework are essential for college writing but alone they are insuffi cient. Incorporating sociocultural perspectives disrupts the tendency toward re-duction that has spurred criticism (Blau, 2006; Gunner, 2006). A sociocultural framework offers a vision of composition that is nuanced, adaptable, and attentive to the needs of low-income fi rst generation students. While cognitive models may be applied to instru-mental writing assessments, a sociocultural model challenges the assumption that a timed placement exam can capture the diverse skills, knowledge, and strengths of incoming students. Hansen (2012) suggested that wide-scale testing apparatuses have usurped writ-ing teachers’ roles. A sociocultural framework that highlights the complexities inherent in composition may encourage approaches to assessment that are more localized, fl exible, and responsive to instructors’ expertise.

What would a sociocultural framework look like? We offer three recommendations. First, a sociocultural model acknowledges that context matters. The framework indicates

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



that writing is situated within particular social, cultural, political, and economic contexts, and these contexts shape writers’ academic trajectories. Social and institutional contexts utilize different discourses, and educational institutions privilege a particular form of lit-eracy—requiring students from nondominant backgrounds to traverse social and cultural boundaries as they engage in academic writing (Ivanic, 1998). The framework outlines recommendations for classroom environments and pedagogical approaches that bridge students’ in- and out-of-school literacies. By asserting that composition is inseparable from the context of the writer, the framework emphasizes the role of teachers, classrooms, schools, and communities in students’ composition.

Second, a sociocultural model makes explicit the tacit cultural knowledge required for meeting academic writing standards in higher education. Research has shown that educational institutions privilege the dominant culture (Carter, 2005). First generation students often have diffi culty demonstrating their writing ability because they struggle with deciphering the cultural codes implicit in schools (Collier & Morgan, 2008). Unspo-ken faculty expectations include the need to type written assignments, the infl exibility of deadlines and length requirements, and the importance of utilizing formal styles guides. In his model for college readiness, Conley (2007) developed the concept of college knowledge, which refers to the contextual skills and knowledge that enable students to understand and adapt to college culture. Conley’s (2007) model suggests that cognitive skills and content knowledge alone are insuffi cient to ensure college success. The same logic applies to postsecondary writing—students may write well, but may lack the tacit cultural knowledge required for illustrating their profi ciency. A sociocultural composition framework explicates these unspoken features of academic culture.

Third, a sociocultural framework acknowledges that literacy expertise manifests in multiple forms, including the nonschool literacy practices of nonmainstream students (Rose, 1989). Academic writing employs a particular form of discourse, and the ability to utilize academic literacy is imperative for successful college writers. At the same time, neglecting to recognize that students from diverse backgrounds possess unique cultural and linguistic strengths may discourage low-income students of color from participating in academic discourse (Gorlewski, 2011). Learning environments in which multiple literacy practices are valued also enrich educational experiences for all students (Summerfi eld & Anderson, 2012). A framework that offers appreciation for the array of literacy strengths that students bring to the classroom does not undermine the importance of academic writing, but rather ensures that underrepresented students are not viewed as defi cient.

These three recommendations serve as suggestions to initiate discourse around the development of a sociocultural writing framework. More broadly, we have advocated for reconceptualizing institutional understandings of college writing readiness. Oakes, Rogers, Lipton, and Morrell (2002) underscored the need to foster “multicultural college-going identities” in low-income students of color, or the ability for students to success-fully navigate through higher education without rejecting their nonschool identities and communities. Oakes et al. (2002) argued that providing underrepresented high school students with access to a rigorous postsecondary environment enables them to develop college-going identities and demonstrate profi ciency through practice. This approach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



contradicts the dominant model of remediation whereby demonstrating profi ciency (i.e., passing a placement test) is a prerequisite to engaging in practice.

Notably, innovative approaches to postsecondary writing remediation emerging at the local level refl ect Oakes et al.’s (2002) recommendation and provide insight into how a sociocultural writing framework might translate to practice. For example, some insti-tutions have replaced traditional remedial sequences, in which students are confi ned to non-credit-bearing, pre-baccalaureate classes, with models that integrate underprepared writers into general education courses (Jenkins, Speroni, Belfi eld, Jaggars, & Edgecombe, 2010). These programs place developmental students into college-level composition and offer additional forms of academic support, such as extended time in the classroom or small group tutoring (Lalicker, 1999; Rutschow & Schneider, 2011). Many composition scholars have advocated for this approach, which avoids labeling underprepared writ-ers with the stigma of remediation (Soliday, 2002) and has shown promise in increasing student outcomes relative to traditional remedial courses (Goen-Salter, 2008; Jenkins et al., 2010).

Other campuses have aimed to minimize the role of writing placement tests by us-ing multiple assessment measures (Hodara, Jaggars, & Karp, 2012) or helping students evaluate their past literacy experiences and select their own course placement (Royer & Gilles, 2003). By encouraging more holistic assessments of students’ writing ability, these new approaches create opportunities for identifying students’ diverse literacy strengths. We are neither suggesting that these models work for all students nor prescribing them as solutions. Rather, we offer them as examples of practices that are challenging traditional cognitive assumptions around the teaching and learning of literacy. More research is needed to explore how the skills of struggling students might be strengthened through the practice of writing in postsecondary environments.

Ultimately, we suggest that developing a sociocultural framework for postsecondary writing may help low-income students of color by challenging the dominant discourse around college access, writing assessment, and remediation. Further inquiry is needed to consider what elements of sociocultural composition research might be included and how they might best be articulated. Collaboration among cognitive and sociocultural scholars is also necessary to ensure the inclusion of contributions from both perspectives. Indeed, we recognize that if students are to succeed in postsecondary writing, they must develop the cognitive skills, traits, and behaviors outlined in the Framework. We contend, however, that the inclusion of sociocultural perspectives creates a clearer pathway for underrepre-sented students to acquire these skills. As Trueba (1990) wrote, “Failure is not individual, so much as it is a failure of the sociocultural system which denies the child an opportunity for social intercourse, and thus for cognitive development” (p. 5). Moving beyond cogni-tive conceptions of postsecondary writing to acknowledge the role of sociocultural context may provide a stronger foundation for enhancing college access and equity.

ReferencesAddison, J., & McGee, S. J. (2010). Writing in high school/writing in college: Research

trends and future directions. College Composition and Communication, 62(1), 147–179.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through

college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., Schwalm, D. E., Carroll, J. L., & Hsiung, S. (1998). Comparison of

a randomized and two quasi-experimental designs in a single outcome evaluation: Effi cacy of a university-level remedial writing program. Evaluation Review, 22(2), 207–244. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9802200203

Anderson, J., Purcell-Gates, V., Gagné, M., & Jang, K. (2009). Implementing an intergenera-

tional literacy program with authentic literacy instruction: Challenges, responses, and results. Vancouver: Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/FundedResearch/201009AndersonPurcell-GatesFullReport.pdf.

Aries, E., & Seider, M. (2005). The interactive relationship between class identity and the college experience: The case of lower income students. Qualitative Sociology, 28(4), 419–443. doi: 10.1007/s11133-005-8366-1

Ashtiani, M., & Feliciano, C. (2012, January). Low-income young adults continue to face barriers

to college entry and degree completion (Research Brief No. 1). Los Angeles: Pathways to Postsecondary Success: Maximizing Opportunities for Youth in Poverty.

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remedia-tion. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886–924. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0037

Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education

Review, 29(2), 255–270.Bartlett, L., & Holland, D. (2002). Theorizing the space of literacy practices. Ways of Know-

ing, 2(1), 10–22.Baxter, A., & Britton, C. (2001). Risk, identity and change: Becoming a mature student. Inter-

national Studies in Sociology of Education, 11(1), 87–104. doi: 10.1080/09620210100200066Beil, C., & Knight, M. A. (2007). Understanding the gap between high school and college

writing. Assessment Update, 19(6), 6–8.Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in

higher education: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736–771.

Blau, S. (2006). College writing, academic literacy, and the intellectual community: California dreams and cultural oppositions. In P. Sullivan & H. Tinberg (Eds.), What is “college-level”

writing? (pp. 358–377). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Burke, J. C. (2005). Reinventing accountability: From bureaucratic rules to performance

results. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,

academic and market demands (pp. 216–245). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Calcagno, J. C., & Long, B. T. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a regression

discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance (NCPR Working Paper). New York: National Center for Postsecondary Research.

Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., Usdan, M. D., & Venezia, A. (2006). Claiming com-

mon ground: State policymaking for improving college readiness and success. (Report No.

06-1). San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Carter, P. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Çavdar, G., & Doe, S. (2012). Learning through writing: Teaching critical thinking skills in writing assignments. Political Science and Politics, 45(2), 298–306. doi: 10.1017/S1049096511002137

Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in fi rst-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Education, 55(4), 425–446. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5

Colyar, J. E., & Stich, A. E. (2011). Discourses of remediation: Low-income stu-dents and academic identities. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 121–141. doi: 10.1177/0002764210381870

Complete College America. (2012). Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relation-ship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing,

9(1), 56–75. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefi ning college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improve-

ment Center. Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), the National Council of Teachers of

English (NCTE), & the National Writing Project (NWP). (2011). Framework for success

in postsecondary writing. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/fi les/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf.

Cox, R. D. (2009). “It was just that I was afraid”: Promoting success by addressing students’ fear of failure. Community College Review, 37(1), 52–80. doi: 10.1177/0091552109338390

Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)envisioning “fi rst-year composition” as “introduction to writing studies.” College

Composition and Communication, 58(4), 552–584. Durst, R. K. (1990). The mongoose and the rat in composition research: Insights from the

RTE annotated bibliography. College Composition and Communication, 41(4), 393–408.Durst, R. K. (2006). Writing at the postsecondary level. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research

on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change (pp. 78–107). New York: Teachers College Press.

Elliot, N., Deess, P., Rudiny, A., & Joshi, K. (2012). Placement of students into fi rst-year writing courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(3), 285–313.

Faircloth, B. S. (2009). Making the most of adolescence: Harnessing the search for identity to understand classroom belonging. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(3), 321–348. doi: 10.1177/0743558409334248

Fanetti, S., Bushrow, K., & DeWeese, D. (2010). Closing the gap between high school writ-ing instruction and college writing expectations. English Journal, 99(4), 77–83.

Farr, M. (1986). Language, culture, and writing: Sociolinguistic foundations of research on writing. Review of Research in Education, 13(1), 195–223. doi: 10.3102/0091732X013001195

Fraizer, D. (2003). The politics of high-stakes writing assessment in Massachusetts: Why inventing a better assessment model is not enough. Journal of Writing Assessment,

1(2), 105–121.Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London:

Taylor & Francis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Goen-Salter, S. (2008). Critiquing the need to eliminate remediation: Lessons from San Francisco State. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(2), 81–105.

Gorlewski, J. A. (2011). Power, resistance, and literacy: Writing for social justice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientifi c Studies of Reading, 11(4), 313–335.

Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2010.488703

Griffi n, M., Falberg, A., & Krygier, G. (2010). Bridging the gap between college and high school teachers of writing in an online assessment community. Teaching English in the

Two-Year College, 37(3), 295–304.Grimm, N. M. (1996). Rearticulating the work of the writing center. College Composition

and Communication, 47(4), 523–548.Gunner, J. (2006). The boxing effect (an anti-essay). In P. Sullivan & H. P. Tinberg (Eds.),

What is “college-level” writing? (pp. 110–120). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teach-ers of English.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Re-

search in Education, 33(1), 212–245. doi: 10.3102/0091732X08328267Hansen, K. (2012). The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing: Better than the

competition, still not all we need. College English, 74(6), 540–543.Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English

language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35–67. doi: 10.2307/3588096

Harklau, L. (2003). L2 writing by “Generation 1.5 students”: Recent research and peda-gogical trends. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 153–156.

Hodara, M., Jaggars, S. S., & Karp, M. M. (2012). Improving developmental education assess-

ment and placement: Lessons from community colleges across the country (CCRC Working Paper No. 51). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community Col-lege Research Center.

Hooker, S., & Brand, B. (2010). College knowledge: A critical component of college and career readiness. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(127), 75–85. doi: 10.1002/yd.364

Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Com-

munication, 47(4), 549–566. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writ-

ing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Jenkins, P., Speroni, C., Belfi eld, C., Jaggars, S. S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for

accelerating academic success of community college remedial English students: Is the acceler-

ated learning program (ALP) effective and affordable (CCRC Working Paper No. 21)? New York: Community College Research Center.

Johnson, N. (2012). The institutional costs of student attrition. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R. K. (2006). Writing into the 21st century: An overview of research on writing, 1999–2004. Written Communication, 23(4), 451–476. doi:10.1177/0741088306291619

Kirst, M., & Venezia, A. (2001). Bridging the great divide between secondary schools and postsecondary education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 92–97.

Klein, P. D., Boman, J. S., & Prince, M. P. (2007). Developmental trends in a writing to learn task. In M. Torrance, D. Galbraith, & L. Van Waes (Eds.), Writing and cognition:

Research and applications (pp. 201–217). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Klein, P. D., & Rose, M. A. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior

students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 433–461.Klos, M. (2006). Using cultural identity to improve learning. Educational Forum, 70(4),

363–370. doi: 10.1080/00131720608984915Knodt, E. A. (2006). What is college writing for? In P. Sullivan & H. Tinberg (Eds.), What

is college-level writing? (pp. 146–157). Urbana, IL: NCTE.Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in

school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Lalicker, W. B. (1999). A basic introduction to basic writing program structures: A baseline

and fi ve alternatives. BWe: Basic Writing e-Journal, 1(2). Retrieved from http://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu.Issue%201.2.html

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837–880.

Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Macbeth, K. P. (2006). Diverse, unforeseen, and quaint diffi culties: The sensible responses of novices learning to following instructions in academic writing. Research in the Teach-

ing of English, 41(2), 180–207.Marlink, J., & Wahleithner, J. (2011). Improving students’ academic writing: Building a bridge

to success. Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project.Maruyama, G. (2012). Assessing college readiness: Should we be satisfi ed with ACT or

other threshold scores? Educational Researcher, 41(7), 252–261.Moje, E. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents.

Teachers College Record, 102(3), 651–690.Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., VanDerHeide, J., Kuhn, D., & Andriessen, J. (2011).

Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning

in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C. A.

MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford.

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2006). Teaching to change the world (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Lipton, M., & Morrell, E. (2002). The social construction of college

access: Confronting the technical, cultural, and political barriers to low-income stu-dents of color. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 105–121). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Obama, B. (2012, January 24). Remarks by the president in State of the Union address. Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address.

Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2011). Mapping new territory: Toward an understanding of adoles-cent L2 writers and writing in US contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(3), 167–181.

Parker, T. L., Bustillos, L. T., & Behringer, L. B. (2010). Remedial and developmental education

policy at a crossroads. Boston, MA: Getting Past Go, & Policy Research on Preparation Access and Remedial Education (PRePARE). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.188.7104&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Perna, L. W. (2005). The key to college access: Rigorous academic preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective

outreach (pp. 113–134). Albany: State University of New York Press.Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.

Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York Guilford Press.Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for

urban high schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185–210.Rosenbaum, J. E., & Becker, K. I. (2011, Fall). The early college challenge: Navigating

disadvantaged students’ transition to college. American Educator, 14–20.Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary: The struggles and achievements of America’s underpre-

pared. New York: Free Press.Royer, D., & Gilles, R. (Eds.). (2003). Directed self-placement: Principles and practices. Cresskill,

NJ: Hampton Press.Rutschow, E. Z., & Schneider, E. (2011). Unlocking the gate: What we know about improving

developmental education. New York: MDRC. Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Severino, C. (2012). The problems of articulation: Uncovering more of the composition

curriculum. College English, 74(6), 533–536.Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation: Institutional and student needs in higher educa-

tion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing–speaking connection: Challenges for research

on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 53–86.Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ prepa-

ration for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist,

55(2), 142–159. doi: 10.1177/0002764210381871Street, B. V. (1994). Cross-cultural perspectives on literacy. In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language

and literacy in social practice: A reader (pp. 139–150). Clevedon, England: The Open University.

Street, B. V. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014



Sullivan, P. S. (2006). An essential question: What is “college-level” writing? In P. Sullivan & H. Tinberg (Eds.), What is “college-level” writing? (pp. 1–28). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Sullivan, P. S. (2012). Essential habits of mind for college readiness. College English, 74(6), 547–553.

Summerfi eld, J., & Anderson, P. M. (2012). A framework adrift. College English, 74(6), 544–547.

Thompson, T. C., & Wilson, B. (2002). High school students meet “college standards.” In T. C. Thompson (Ed.), Teaching writing in high school and college: Conversations and col-

laborations (pp. 57–70). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Trueba, H. T. (1990). The role of culture in literacy acquisition: An interdisciplinary ap-

proach to qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,

3(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1080/0951839900030101Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). The evolution of defi cit thinking: Educational thought and practice.

London: Falmer.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Worthman, C., Gardner, J., & Thole, M. (2011). The three Rs and high school writing instruc-

tion: Bridging in- and out-of-school writing to reach “struggling writers.” Pedagogies:

An International Journal, 6(4), 312–330. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2011.604903Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment.

College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 483–503.Yi, Y. (2010). Adolescent multilingual writers’ transitions across in- and out-of-school

writing contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 17–32.Zumbrunn, S., & Krause, K. (2012). Conversations with leaders: Principles of effective

writing instruction. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 346–353. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01053

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

USC

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a] a

t 13:

55 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Examining college writing readiness

Documents

Transcript of Examining college writing readiness