WAW Standing Group Breakout #1 – Notes

Thanks to Stacy Wilson of Mesa Community College for taking notes on our breakout discussion!

Bess Fox, Marymount U, VA: Described a WAW assignment where students read research on source use (e.g., Howard) and analyze their own source use. This assignment happens before a more traditional research paper assignment.

John Whicker, Fontbonne U, stresses context analysis. Assignments for first-semester FYC include an open letter to an English professor based on what they’ve learned about transfer; rhetorical analysis of a controversial issue; an argumentative essay where they take a nuanced position on that issue; and a theory of writing. Assignments for second-semester FYC include a guide to analyzing discourse communities, a genre analysis, a research project in two genres, and a theory of writing. See John’s materials on the CCCC 2019 site for more detail.

Testing a Theory of Writing in FYW

N. Claire Jackson
University of Louisville

In 2016, four other instructors at UMaine (where I was teaching at the time) and I began incorporating elements of the Teacher for Transfer curriculum into our WAW first-year-writing course. The theory of writing has been the TfT element I find the most useful, and I have students return to it repeatedly throughout the course, asking them to reflect on how they would make changes in light of their most recent reading and writing and then to revise that theory accordingly.

In planning our assignment sequences, we discussed the benefits of explicitly asking students to reflect on writing in other classes as well. This prompt is what I developed to foster that reflection. It is part of a scaffolded assignment sequence in which students engage in new writing tasks between (almost) every class to work toward final portfolios. This prompt is typically when I see students begin to make more thorough connections between the writing they do in first-year-writing and the other types of writing they engage in or expect to engage in in the future. While many of the readings I include focus on writing in new contexts, some of which are non-academic, asking students to apply their own theories to those other types of writing helps them see these connections more clearly than when they just read what others have said.

Prompt: Your last assignment asked you to “test” your theory of writing against your experiences writing your last essay in order to think about how complete and useful this theory is. While this is a good start to evaluating the usefulness of your theory, you should once again recall Downs’ and Robertson’s claim that “The better–the more completely, consistently, and elegantly–a theory accounts for past experience and the more accurate its predictions about future experience, the stronger or more robust it is, and thus the more useful it is” (111). As such, it would seem useful to test how consistently your theory of writing can account for your past experiences with writing and make predictions about future writing experiences for writing experiences outside of this class. Therefore, for this assignment you will turn your attention to writing you have produced (or are producing) outside of this class in order to begin to develop a clearer picture of the usefulness of your theory of writing.

For next class, please select a piece of your writing from outside of this class. It can be something you have completed or something you are still composing. You may choose an academic example (a history paper or lab report you wrote last week; an essay from high school) or a non-academic example (a tweet, a post on an online forum, a letter to your grandmother, fanfiction, a prayer journal, etc.). The more unlike the writing you do in ENG 101 this sample is, the more fruitful and interesting your examination will likely be.

After you have selected the piece of writing, use your theory of writing as a frame to explain what you did as you composed this piece of writing, how you did so, and why, much as you did in your last assignment. Like with the last assignment, the length will, in part, be determined by the usefulness of your theory of writing. If you find yourself unable to write much, you may want to instead begin thinking about how you will revise your theory of writing to account for this other type of writing.

You do not need to send me this piece of writing (though you can), but you will need to make sure I have enough context to understand what you’re saying, so you’ll want to cite specific examples from your text. Make sure you also explain what your theory of writing fails to account for–that is, are there ways your theory of writing as it is currently written fails to explain what happens when you write, say, a tweet instead of an academic essay? How will you revise your theory of writing in light of this information?

When you have finished, please revise your theory of writing based on the work you did here. Please send me your revised theory and the writing you did above.

Hendrickson & Garcia de Mueller 2016 – “Inviting students to determine for themselves what it means to write across disciplines”

Hendrickson, Brian, and Genevieve Garcia de Mueller. “Inviting Students to Determine for Themselves What it Means to Write Across Disciplines.” The WAC Journal 27 (2016). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/journal/vol27/hendrickson.pdf

In lieu of an abstract, the first paragraph: “Situated in the literature on threshold concepts and transfer of prior knowledge in WAC/WID and composition studies, with particular emphasis on the scholarship of writing across difference, our article explores the possibility of re-envisioning the role of the composition classroom within the broader literacy ecology of colleges and universities largely comprised of students from socioeconomically and ethnolinguistically underrepresented communities. We recount the pilot of a composition course prompting students to examine their own prior and other literacy values and practices, then transfer that growing meta-awareness to the critical acquisition of academic discourse. Our analysis of students’ self-assessment memos reveals that students apply certain threshold concepts to acquire critical agency as academic writers, and in a manner consistent with Guerra’s concept of transcultural repositioning. We further consider the role collective rubric development plays as a critical incident facilitating transcultural repositioning.”

CFP for WAW sponsored panel – CCCC 2019

The Writing About Writing (WAW) Standing Group and the WAW Steering Committee invite proposals for the 2019 WAW Sponsored Panel. The sponsored panel is guaranteed to be accepted to the CCCC program when the Standing Group submits it, and we are reaching out to the WAW community to identify potential presenters.

What kind of proposal fits the WAW Sponsored Panel’s goals?

We are interested in interactive panels as well as individual proposals. We are interested in proposals that help us extend the practice and impact of WAW pedagogy or research, particularly proposals authored and co-authored by new and emerging scholars in WAW. We are also hoping to include panels reporting on ongoing research into WAW programs and courses. We especially invite proposals that connect WAW to the 2019 conference theme of performance-rhetoric and performance-composition.

How will the WAW Sponsored Panel selected proposals be submitted to CCCC?

Sponsored Panels will be submitted by the WAW Sponsored Panel Committee through the regular CCCC proposal system, which is why we are asking for the same information as the online program proposal system.

To be considered for the WAW Sponsored Panel, proposals must be received before April 23 at 11:59pm. Please send your proposal and relevant presenter/panel information through this form.

To be considered for the Sponsored Panel, please follow 4Cs guidelines when writing your proposal. Please describe the focus of the proposed session: 1000 words or less for a concurrent panel, 250 words or less for an individual proposal. Please also clearly select three area clusters for your proposal.

Be sure that your proposal considers the conference themes and the five main criteria as listed on the guidelines page: 1) how the proposal is situated in the field, 2) its main focus, 3) what is innovative and new, 4) how it is audience-oriented and performative, 5) how it is inclusive, aware of social justice concerns, and/or engaged with political aims, discourses, and ideas, and 6) how it adds new or underrepresented voices or texture to the discussion.

If you have questions and/or concerns, feel free to email Lisa Tremain at: lisa.tremain@humboldt.edu.


CCCC 2018 Pittsburgh Panel Proposal

Samuel Stinson and I are putting together a panel to propose for Cs next year in Pittsburgh. Potentially, we could submit this for consideration as the standing group panel, but if it is not chosen for that, we will still submit normally. We are looking for two or three others to join us in a roundtable discussion of different approaches to WAW, the differences in theory and axiology behind them, and how WAW proponents should understand, discuss, and debate these differences. The following is our current draft of the proposal introduction:

How do you WAW? Enacting Writing about Writing pedagogies: Which one? What is your goal, and by what should your performance be Measured?

Writing about writing (Downs & Wardle 2007) has become an increasingly popular approach to teaching first-year writing courses, but as with writing instruction in general, individual instructors enact and perform WAW differently (see Downs & Wardle 2012). While Wardle and Downs (2014), as the most well-known WAW proponents have largely downplayed the significance of these variations in WAW, with Downs going so far as to say that “there really isn’t a wrong way to do things; there are practically infinite number of good ways” to teach a WAW course (296), choices about how to implement, to perform, WAW in a classroom imply differences in theory, axiology, and, therefore, desired outcomes. Other approaches to WAW (see Bishop 2004; DeJoy 2004; Dew 2003; Sargent & Paraskevas 2005), while they all forward writing studies scholarship as content, select different scholars, require different assignments, and seek to see different developments in students’ writing, requiring that both students and WAW approaches be assessed differently in order to avoid the category mistake of teaching for one result but assessing for another (see Fulkerson 1979).

In this roundtable, the speakers will each briefly describe their WAW course and the values (axiology) that underlie their choices about which writing concepts, purposes, and pedagogical commitments they emphasize in their courses. Second, the presenters will discuss what WAW proponents should do with the diversity of values evident in different approaches to WAW.


We are particularly looking for presenters who employ WAW approaches that focus on language, literacy, writing studies as a discipline, identity and culture, etc. My own contribution will be on the hybrid TFT-WAW approach we’ve implemented as our standard FYC curriculum at my institution. We’d like as wide a variety in the 4 or 5 presenters as possible. If you are interested, contact me at jwhicker@fontbonne.edu with a brief summary of your WAW course.


WAW Standing Group – Dr. Sam Looker-Koenigs on her new book, Language Diversity and Academic Writing

At our CCCC Standing Group meeting this year, we were thrilled to have Dr. Sam Looker-Koenigs talk about her new Bedford Spotlight Reader, Language Diversity and Academic Writing. Her handout from the presentation is attached; it shares her rationale for the course, chapter summaries, and a selected bibliography.

WAW Standing Group, CCCC 2018 Notes. Language Diversity and Academic Writing group.

During the WAW Standing Group meeting, our breakout group discussed:

The textbook: Language Diversity and Academic Writing by Samantha Looker-Koenigs

  • We recognized the diversity of scholars in the textbook as important. Some of us shared that our first attempts creating a WAW reading list for our students included mostly white men. More diversity of authors read in the classroom is needed.
  • The book includes excerpts rather than full articles because 1) Bedford had constraints about lengths, both for the textbook as a whole and for individual readings, and 2) because this allowed more readings to be included.

Literacy Narratives

  • This discussion began with a list of possible readings to use to frame the literacy narrative, especially one that addresses issues of language diversity. I, unfortunately, did not catch all of those readings. The two I did catch were Anzaldúa’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” and Alcoff’s “The Problem of Speaking for Others.
  • The latter reading is useful for moving away from issues of “linguistic tourism” in the class.
  • This idea of “linguistic tourism” framed some anxiety around asking students to engage in a literacy narrative that asks students to focus on their diverse language practices. Geoff mentioned hearing of an assignment where students were required to code-mesh, which included asking white students to use AAE. We all recognized this as a problem.
  • We discussed framing code-meshing for students using Canagarajah or Ashanti Young. In thinking about WAW approaches to language diversity, we discussed the necessity of helping students think about how academic writing already involves a meshing of codes, but that’s it important to recognize the difference in stakes for different language users.
  • It was shared by multiple people that literacy narratives often feel performative, with students engaging in transformation narratives articulating what they think the teacher wants to hear. Nick shared borrowing the “Theory of Writing” from Yancey et al.’s “Teaching for Transfer” curriculum as something students begin on the first day of class and repeatedly return to throughout the semester. This theory of writing asks students to explain what previous experiences informed their ideas about writing, so students engage in some of the same moves as a literacy narrative but in a more critical manner.

Approaches to Assignment Sequencing

  • Several approaches to structuring the course were discussed:
    • The way the textbook moves through thinking about issues of language and identity to academic writing.
    • Working backwards from that: starting with readings and discussion on the ways in which ideas of “good writing” are not stable but context-dependent. Once students recognize this, then moving to destabilize their notions of standard language.
    • Linking discussions of language diversity with discussions of the rhetorical situations. Students can begin by thinking about what type of language is appropriate for a text message and what type of language is appropriate for an assignment, and why.
    • Working towards discussions of language by beginning with discussions of nonverbal language (i.e. graffiti, body language, etc.) to think about how communication within culture and how those communicative norms change. This can then move to official signs (i.e. stop signs), as codes that are written for us, before moving to language as traditionally conceived. John Swales’ article on discourse is useful framing for this.
    • Beginning with a “language autobiography” rather than a “literacy narrative.” The first week of class is ungraded reflection where students talk about themselves as writers. Students then read the Thaiss and Zawacki article in the text book and think about how some of the things they’ve been taught to do in writing are indicative of the larger moves discussed here.

2018 CCCC’s Writing About Writing Sessions

2018 CCCC’s Writing About Writing Sessions



A.05 Ecologies of Learning in Writing about Writing (WAW) Programs Sponsored by the Writing about Writing Standing Group Kansas City Convention Center: 3501 C

Speakers: Sophia Bamert, University of California, Davis

Christopher Basgier, Auburn University, AL

Naomi Clark, Loras College, Dubuque, IA



F.01 Writing About Writing Development Group Meeting The WAW Standing Group’s meeting conducts the group’s business and lets members socialize and coordinate efforts in WAW pedagogy and research. Kansas City Convention Center: Bartle Room 2207 Standing Group Chair: Andrea Olinger, University of Louisville, KY

F.12 Naming What We Don’t Know: The Possibilities of Writing We explore the pleasures of pushing against our academic voices as we write about writing and bridge the personal with the academic. Kansas City Marriott Downtown: Colonial Ballroom

Chair: Chris Anson, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Speakers: Anne Ruggles Gere, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, “Writing about Developing Writers”

Nancy Sommers, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, “The Secret Life of Objects: Writing about Family”

Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA, “Life Work: What, Why, and How I Write about Teaching”

F.19 Writing about Writing at the Community College: Transforming Practices for Diverse Student Populations Community college instructors discuss challenges and strategies for implementing WAW pedagogy in diverse two-year contexts. Kansas City Convention Center: Bartle Room 2209

Speakers: Angelique Johnston, Monroe Community College, Rochester, NY, “Introducing WAW through Multimodal Composing in Community College FYC”

Elizabeth Johnston, Monroe Community College, Rochester, NY, “Introducing Writing as a Public Act for Community College Students” Miriam Moore, Lord Fairfax Community College, Middletown, VA, “Teaching Integrated Reading and Writing: WAW Texts in ALP and ESL Classrooms”


I.06 Engaging Technical Writing: Exigencies and Positionality of Professional Writing in Writing Programs Misfit between WaW and technical writing courses; teaching technical writing “service” courses; TechComm researcher positionality in scholarship. Kansas City Marriott Downtown: Julia Lee A

Chair: Stacey Sheriff, Colby College, Waterville, ME

Speakers: Casey Akins, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, “Insider Positionality in Technical Communication Scholarship: A Quantitative Inquiry”

Lara Kattekola, LaGuardia Community College, CUNY, Long Island City, NY, “The Politics of Teaching the Black Sheep of the English Department (aka the Technical Writing ‘Service’ Course)”

Blake Scott, University of Central Florida, Orlando, “WaW in Professional Writing: Differing Exigencies, Expertise, and Techne”

I.23 Adaptive Languaging? What Writing about Multilingual Writing Can Teach Us about Transfer This interactive session invites participants to engage critical intersections of transfer studies and multilingual writing. Kansas City Marriott Downtown: Julia Lee B Speakers: Lindsey Ives, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL Katherine Silvester, Indiana University, Bloomington Emily Simnitt, University Of Oregon, Salem

J.46 Hitching Pedagogy and Studenthood: Graduate Student Research in a Writing about Writing Curriculum Graduate students share their experiences using research to make sense of, and intervene into, a writing about writing curriculum. Kansas City Convention Center: 2503 A

Chair: Christopher Basgier, Auburn University, AL

Speakers: Casey Kohs, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, “In the Margins: Student Notetaking and Reading Comprehension in First-Year Composition”

Kjerstine Trooien, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, “Attempts at Pedagogy: What Writing Center Techniques Can Accomplish in a Nontraditional Classroom”

MaKayla Valdez, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, “‘Big Picture’ Reading and Writing”

Ashleah Wimberly, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, “Teaching for Transfer Is Teaching for Metacognition” Julia Wold, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, “The Knowledge/ Argument Disconnect: Reading Strategies and Their Impact on Rhetorical Choice in Student Writing”



M.25 Digital Possibilities for Writing about Writing Pedagogies Speakers using WAW pedagogy with a multimodal focus navigate challenges associated with disabilities, digital composing habits, and conflict. Kansas City Convention Center: Bartle

Room 2215 B

Speakers: Geoffrey Clegg, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX, “Writing about Disability, Writing about Writing: Paying Attention to the Composing Process of Disabled Writers in the WAW Classroom”

Christy Wenger, Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, WV, “Beyond the Page: Using Social Media to Teach Threshold Concepts”


Writing About Writing Working Bibliography

If you would like to see any work not represented in this working bibliography, please send additions to geoffrey.clegg [at] mwsu [dot] com. I will update this as needed.

Articles and Books:

Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Elizabeth Wardle. Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies. University Press of Colorado, 2015.

Adler-Kassner, Linda, et al. “Assembling Knowledge: The Role of Threshold Concepts in Facilitating Transfer.” Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer. Editors: Anson, Chris M., & Moore, Jessie L. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado, USA, Chapter 1, pp 17-48.

Adler-Kassner, Linda, John Majewski, and Damian Koshnick. “The Value of Troublesome Knowledge: Transfer and Threshold Concepts in Writing and History.” Composition Forum. Vol. 26, 2012.

Allen, Matthew, Mary McCall, and Gracemarie Mike. “First-Year Composition through a Global Engineering Perspective.” connexions 1.2 109-133 (2013).

Andersen, Rebekka. “Teaching Visual Rhetoric as a Close Reading Strategy.” Composition Studies 44.2 (2016).

Beemer, Cristy. “Sophists or SMEs? Teaching Rhetoric Across the Curriculum in the Professional and Technical Writing Classroom.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 44.2 (2016): 204.

Behm, Nicholas N., Gregory R. Glau, and Deborah H. Holdstein. WPA Outcomes Statement—A Decade Later. Anderson: Parlor, 2012. Web.

Bird, Barbara. “A Basic Writing Course Design to Promote Writer Identity: Three Analyses of Student Papers.” Journal of Basic Writing 32.1 (2013): 62-96. Web.

Bird, Barbara. “Writing about Writing as the Heart of a Writing Studies Approach to FYC: Response to Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle, “Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions” and to Libby Miles Et Al., “Thinking Vertically”. College Composition and Communication, vol. 60, no. 1, 2008, pp. 165-171.

Carter, Shannon. “Writing about Writing in Basic Writing: A Teacher/Researcher/Activist Narrative.” BWe: Basic Writing e-journal, vol. 8-9, 2009, pp. 1.

Charlton, Jonnika. “Seeing is Believing: Writing Studies with ‘Basic Writing’ Students.” BWe: Basic Writing E-Journal (2009): 8-9.

Clark, Irene L., and Andrea Hernandez. “Genre awareness, academic argument, and transferability.” The WAC Journal 22 (2011): 65-78.

Devet, Bonnie. “The writing center and transfer of learning: A primer for directors.” The Writing Center Journal (2015): 119-151.

Dieterle, Brandy, and Stephanie Vie. “Digital First-Year Composition: Integrating Multimodality into a Writing about Writing Approach.” Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies 3.1 (2015): 276-289.

Downs, Doug. “Teaching First-Year Writers to use Texts: Scholarly Readings in Writing-about-Writing in First-Year Comp.” Reader: essays in reader-oriented theory, criticism, and pedagogy, 2010, pp. 19.

Downs, Doug and Elizabeth Wardle. “Reimagining the Nature of FYC Trends in Writing-About-Writing Pedagogies.” eds. Ritter, Kelly, and Paul Kei Matsuda. Exploring Composition Studies : Sites, Issues, Perspectives. Logan: Utah State UP, 2012, pp. 123-144.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn, and Jennifer Wells. “Beyond Knowledge and Skills: Writing Transfer and the Role of Student Dispositions.” Composition Forum. Vol. 26, 2012.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn. “Connected Pedagogy and Transfer of Learning: An Examination of Graduate Instructor Beliefs vs. Practices in First-Year Writing” Journal of Teaching Writing 28.1 (2013): 53-84.

Finer, Bryna. “Exploring Composition Studies: Sites, Issues, and Perspective.” Composition Studies 41.1 (2013): 157-61. Web.

Fishman, Jenn, and Mary Jo Reiff. “Taking it on the Road: Transferring knowledge about rhetoric and writing across curricula and campuses.” Composition Studies 39.2 (2011): 121.

Fraizer, Dan. “First Steps beyond First Year: Coaching Transfer after FYC.(First Year Composition).” Writing Program Administration 33.3 (2010): 34. Web.

Hardy, Jack A., Ute Römer, and Audrey Roberson. “The Power of Relevant Models: Using a Corpus of Student Writing to Introduce Disciplinary Practices in a First Year Composition Course.” Across the Disciplines 12.1 (2015): n1.

Hassel, Holly, and Joanne Baird Giordano. “Transfer institutions, transfer of knowledge: The development of rhetorical adaptability and underprepared writers.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 37.1 (2009): 24.

Hill, Heather N. “Tutoring for Transfer: The Benefits of Teaching Writing Center Tutors about Transfer Theory.” The Writing Center Journal (2016): 77-102.

Howson, Emily, Chris Massenburg, and Cecilia Shelton. “Reflections on Building a Popular Writing Course.” Issues 1.1.

Ihara, Rachel. “Student Perspectives on Self-Assessment: Insights and Implications.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 41.3 (2014): 223-58. Web.

Klausman, Jeffrey. “Review: Writing about Writing: A College Reader.” Teaching English in the Two Year College vol. 39, 2012, pp. 421-422.

Kraemer, Don J. “Just Comp.” Writing Program Administration 35.2 (2012): 85. Web.

Kutney, Joshua P. “Will Writing Awareness Transfer to Writing Performance? Response to Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle,” Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions”.” College Composition and Communication 59.2 (2007): 276-279.

Looker, Samantha. “Writing about Language: Studying Language Diversity with First-Year Writers.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 44.2 (2016): 176.

McCracken, I. M., and Valerie A. Ortiz. “Latino/a Student (Efficacy) Expectations: Reacting and Adjusting to a Writing-about-Writing Curriculum Change at a Hispanic Serving Institution.” Composition Forum, vol. 27, 2013.

Miles, Libby, et al. “Commenting on Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s” Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions”.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 503-511.

Miley, Michelle, and Doug Downs. “Crafting Collaboricity: Harmonizing the Force Fields of Writing Program and Writing Center Work.” Writing Program and Writing Center Collaborations. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, pp. 25-45.

Nava, Angelica T. “Where Teachers and Students Meet: Exploring Perceptions in First-Year Composition.” Young Scholars In Writing 9 (2015): 119-127.

Nowacek, Rebecca S. Agents of integration: Understanding transfer as a rhetorical act. SIU Press, 2011.

Perrault, Sarah. “Course Description UWP 011: Popular Science & Technology Writing is a sophomore-level.” Composition Studies 40 (2012): 112-133.

Read, Sarah, and Michael J. Michaud. “Writing about Writing and the Multimajor Professional Writing Course.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 66, no. 3, 2015, pp. 427.

Reiff, Mary Jo, Anis Bawarshi, and Michelle Ballif. Ecologies of Writing Programs: Program Profiles in Context. Anderson: Parlor, 2015. Web.

Robertson, Liane, Kara Taczak, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. “Notes toward a Theory of Prior Knowledge and Its Role in College Composers’ Transfer of Knowledge and Practice.” Composition Forum. Vol. 26, 2012.

Ruecker, Todd. “Reimagining” English 1311: Expository English Composition” as “Introduction to Rhetoric and Writing Studies”.” Composition Studies 39.1 (2011): 87.

Samuels, Robert. “Contingent Labor, Writing Studies, and Writing about Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 68, no. 1, 2016, pp. A3.

Sánchez, Fernando, Liz Lane, and Tyler Carter. “Engaging Writing about Writing Theory and Multimodal Praxis: Remediating WaW for English 106: First Year Composition.” Composition Studies 42.2 (2014): 118.

Scott, Tony. “Subverting Crisis in the Political Economy of Composition.” College Composition and Communication 68.1 (2016): 10.

Skeffington, Jillian K. “Enhancing Transfer from First-Year Composition: A Pedagogy of Shorter Essays.” Journal of Teaching Writing 27.2 (2012): 27-45.

Smitherman, Carey E., and Amanda K. Girard. “Creating Connection: Composition Theory and Creative Writing Craft in the First-Year Writing Classroom.” Currents in Teaching and Learning 3.2 (2011).

Sylvia, Cami, and Michael J. Michaud. “Looking Into Writing.” Composition Studies 43.2 (2015): 186.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Intractable Writing Program Problems, Kairos, and Writing about Writing: A Profile of the University of Central Florida’s First-Year Composition Program.” Composition Forum, vol. 27, 2013.

Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. “Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Revisiting ‘Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions’ Five Years on.” Composition Forum, vol. 27, 2013.

Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. “Looking into Writing-about-Writing Classrooms.” First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice, eds. Deborah Coxwell-Teague and Ronald F. Lunsford. Parlor Press, 2014.

Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader, Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston, 2014.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Understanding “transfer” from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study.” Writing Program Administration 31.2 (2007): 65-85.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “’Mutt Genres’ and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?.” College Composition and Communication (2009): 765-789.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Creative Repurposing for Expansive Learning: Considering ‘Problem-Exploring’and ‘Answer-Getting’Dispositions in Individuals and Fields.” Composition Forum. Vol. 26. No. 1. 2012.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Continuing the Dialogue: Follow-up Comments on” Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions”.” College Composition and Communication 60.1 (2008): 175-181.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Intractable Writing Program Problems.” Composition Forum. Vol. 27. 2013.

Wells, Jennifer. “They can Get there from here: Teaching for Transfer through a “Writing about Writing” Course.” The English Journal, vol. 101, no. 2, 2011, pp. 57-63.

White-Farnham, Jamie. “Writing 302: Writing Culture.” Composition Studies 40.2 (2012): 92.

Yancey, Kathleen, Liane Robertson, and Kara Taczak. Writing across contexts: Transfer, composition, and sites of writing. University Press of Colorado, 2014.


Smith, Katie M. Transitioning to Writing about Writing: A Consideration of the Metawriting Teaching Approach at the University of Arkansas, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014.

Pappas, Stephanie L. Research shows: Recasting Research Instruction in Writing-about-Writing Approaches to First-Year Composition, vol. 74, 2013.

Watson, Hilary. Writing about Writing: One Student’s Challenges Producing a Scholarly Personal Narrative Thesis and Applying the Outcomes as a Student Affairs Professional, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2016.

Goertel, James. Perception is Reality: The First Year Composition Student, Writing about Writing Discussions, and the Author-Informed Text, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2016.