Discussion prompts: “Mutt genres” in the FYC classroom

Elizabeth Wardle,  “‘Mutt Genres’ and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?”

Ifeoma’s and Joseph’s questions…

 

1.  Wardle’s article “Mutt Genres” mentioned that it is difficult “to teach people to write out of context” (768). As an ESL Center intern how is this statement relevant to your observations and position as a tutor?

 

2.  What are some general writing skills you consider transferable to major specific writing classes? Do you believe that they are “universal” writing skills that are transferable?

 

3.  Wardle defined writing as “a tool used to act on…other objects of attention and to achieve myriad other goals.” How and when is writing used an object in a classroom and how and when is it used as a goal?

 

4.  Wardle looks at English Composition classes and remarks how their activity systems don’t have anything in common with other disciplines or coursework on campus—ironic, since composition classes are supposed to prepare students for these classes.

So, what should the purpose of composition classes be?

 

5.  The article describes the efforts of Karen, a graduate-student teacher, to bring a scientific genre of writing—specifically biology—to her FYC students.  Karen found these effort futile, that the “tools and conventions [of biology] were simply not available to her as a biology activity system outsider” (Wardle 779).

Perhaps Karen had aimed at the wrong target.  Our earlier reading by Sommers and Saltz found that first year students (at Harvard) made valuable attempts at writing in various genres, and that even though freshman writing largely missed the mark, these attempts themselves worked to teach students about the genres.  Subsequent research and writing would improve, and this is how “academic writing” in learned.

We know that writing itself is a process—the first attempts need revision and improvement. Learning genres is a process, too, and improvement comes with practice.  If this is so, then perhaps the idea of disciplinary cohorts sharing the same FYC course is good.  The students’ work doesn’t have to match disciplinary standards, and teachers don’t have to be experts in the discipline or genre.

What do you think?

 

6.  Wardle mentions, but doesn’t explain, the “myth of transience” (784).  Can anyone help us understand what this is?