Skip to content
2018
Volume 57, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0034-527X
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2348

Abstract

This paper highlights the perspectives of first-generation students of color in their first year of college, and the ways in which they exercised agency in their writing. Framed by definitions of agency as mediated action that creates meaning, the paper reports on qualitative data collected from a summer writing program for first-generation students and students of color, and from writing samples and follow-up interviews with six students who participated in the summer program. Findings suggest that students in their first year of college leveraged their social and discoursal identities to offer new ways of understanding an issue. They also wrote using a translingual approach, integrating different discourses and forms of knowledge, and challenging views of academic writing as monolithic. The findings also suggest the link between awareness and action, meaning that what and how students wrote were informed by their awareness of writing and awareness of themselves as writers and cultural beings. The study’s findings have implications for advancing more nuanced views of agency and academic literacies, and redesigning writing instruction at the high school and college level.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/rte202332353
2023-02-01
2024-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Addison 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahearn L. M. (2001) Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin M. M. (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Emerson C., Holquist M., Trans.). University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballenger C. (2009) Puzzling moments, teachable moments: Practicing teacher research in urban classrooms. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaufort A. (2004) Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a theory of disciplinary writing expertise. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 136–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Burgess A., Ivanič R. (2010) Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication, 27(2), 228–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Canagarajah A. S. (2002) Critical academic writing and multilingual students. University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho H. (2014) Enacting critical literacy: The case of a language minority preservice teacher. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(5) 677–699.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cochran-Smith M., Lytle S. L. (2015) Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cooper M. M. (2011) Rhetorical agency as emergent and enacted. College Composition and Communication, 62(3), 420–449.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crosby C. (2010) Academic identities under construction: Academic literacies and identities of developmental immigrant students. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 26(2), 30–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Desjarlais R. (1997) Shelter blues: Sanity and selfhood among the homeless. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Duranti A. (2004) Agency in language. In Duranti A. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 451–473). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Flannery K. (1991) Composing and the question of agency. College English, 53(6), 701–713.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox T. (1990) Basic writing as cultural conflict. Journal of Education, 172(1), 65–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fox T. (2015) Basic writing and the conflict over language. Journal of Basic Writing, 34(1), 4–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gee J. P. (2001) What is literacy? In Shannon P. (Ed.), Becoming political, too: New readings and writings on the politics of literacy education (pp. 1–9). Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Geisler C. (2004) How ought we to understand the concept of rhetorical agency? Report from the ARS. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34(3), 9–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gorzelsky G. (2009) Working boundaries: From student resistance to student agency. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), 64–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamilton M., Pitt K. (2009) Creativity in academic writing: Escaping from the straitjacket of genre. In Carter A., Lillis T., Parkin S. (Eds.), Why writing matters: Issues of access and identity in writing research and pedagogy (pp. 61–79). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris J. (1989) The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40(1), 11–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hawkins V. M., Larabee H. J. (2009) Engaging racial/ethnic minority students in out-of-class activities on predominantly white campuses. In Harper S. R., Quaye S. J. (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 179–197). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Heath S. B. (1983) Ways with words: Language, life, and work in community and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hitlin S., Elder G. H. Jr. (2007) Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 170–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Horner B., Lu M.-Z., Royster J. J., Trimbur J. (2011) Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hull G., Rose M. (1990) “This wooden shack place”: The logic of an unconventional reading. College Composition and Communication, 41(3), 287–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hull G., Rose M., Fraser K. L., Castellano M. (1991) Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composition and Communication, 42(3), 299–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ivanič R. (1998) Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jeffery J. V., Wilcox K. (2014) “How do I do it if I don’t like writing?”: Adolescents’ stances toward writing across disciplines. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1095–1117.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jones C., Turner J., Street B. V. (Eds.) (1999) Students writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues. John Benjamins Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kamler B. (2001) Relocating the personal: A critical writing pedagogy. SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lea M. R., Street B. V. (2006) The” academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368–377.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Le Ha P. (2009) Strategic, passionate, but academic: Am I allowed in my writing? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(2), 134–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Leki I. (1995) Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 235–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Leonard R. L. (2014) Multilingual writing as rhetorical attunement. College English, 76(3), 227–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lillis T. (2003) Student writing as “academic literacies”: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design. Language and Education, 17(3), 192–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lomotey K. (Ed.). (2010) Predominantly white institutions. In Encyclopedia of African American education (Vol. 1, pp. 524–526). SAGE Publications. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412971966.n193
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Park J. Y. (2016) “He didn’t add more evidence”: Using historical graphic novels to develop language learners’ disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 35–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Park J. Y. (2018) Learning from urban immigrant youth about academic literacies. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pascarella E. T., Pierson C. T., Wolniak G. C., Terenzini P. T. (2004) First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shanahan T., Shanahan C. (2008) Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shapiro S., Cox M., Shuck G., Simnitt E. (2016) Teaching for agency: From appreciating linguistic diversity to empowering student writers. Composition Studies, 44(1), 31–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Soliday M. (2011) Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sommers N., Saltz L. (2004) The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year. College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 124–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spack R. (1997) The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 765–774.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sternglass M. S. (2017) Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at the college level. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Strauss A., Corbin J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wallace D. L., Bell A. (1999) Being Black at a predominantly white university. College English, 61(3), 307–327.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilcox K. C., Yu F., Nachowitz M. (2015) Epistemic complexity in adolescent writing. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 5–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Williams B. T. (2017) Literacy practices and perceptions of agency: Composing identities. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wong S. (2006) Dialogic approaches to TE-SOL: Where the ginkgo tree grows. Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zamel V (1997) Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 341–352.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/rte202332353
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error