Recently, issues have been raised in editorials concerning first-year composition (FYC). As director of first-year composition, I would like to address three general issues that have surfaced: instructor training, grading standards and the political nature of first-year composition.Instructor Training

Each year we offer over 200 sections. This requires us to have a large staff of tenure-track and permanent faculty, teaching assistants and temporary instructors. TAs are carefully chosen from a large pool of applicants. Our TA training program includes a graduate course in pedagogy theory and practice, professional development sessions throughout the year, and on-going supervision and mentoring. Temporary instructors, who have at least a Masters degree and previous teaching experience, attend an orientation session and professional development sessions; they also receive on-going supervision and mentoring. All staff who teach FYC are expected to follow the goals stated in the “Student’s Guide to 104/105.” These goals build on the expert writing instruction provided to students by regular and AP high school faculty.

Most of our teaching assistants, instructors and regular staff do an excellent job of teaching first-year composition and treat students with respect. However, in a program as large as this, problems do occur. When problems occur, we work with staff and students to remediate the situation as soon as possible. Grading standards

Grading inflation is a problem in first-year composition as it is elsewhere in the university and across the country. Faculty in other departments have called to ask how students who turned in poorly written seminar papers could have received high grades in FYC. Although it can be argued that grades, like test scores, are sometimes an imperfect reflection of ability, they are the only symbol we have right now. Thus, I have advised instructors to consider carefully the grades they give. I ask the FYC staff to “keep in mind that ‘C’ represents ‘average’.” I also caution them that this policy “is only a guideline — it is not a formula. Some sections will have more As and Bs; some will have fewer.”

Any student who receives a C should receive an adequate explanation as to why the work did not receive a different grade. Good writing is not a formula, so the instructor may not be able to give the definitive answer many students want, but the instructor certainly can and should provide advice about how organization, support, style or correctness can be addressed to produce better writing. Political nature of 105

Finally, to the comment that English 105 is political, I would agree. However, I would argue that education in itself is a political endeavor. Making the decision that everyone has a right to a public education is political. The decision that the state and federal governments have a responsibility to educate citizens is political; ISU, as the first land-grant institution, represents fully that political decision. Political decisions have been made all along the way in the curriculum across our campus: Why are certain majors offered but not others? Why are some colleges identified as central to the university’s mission and other colleges are identified as serving that central mission?

If FYC is more politicized than many other courses, it is only because we try to make invisible values more visible. The result we hope for is better writers and thinkers.

Our TA training program encourages staff to ask students to consider what values underlie the issues that people read and write about. When someone writes an essay arguing that burning the American flag should (or should not) be our right, what values does the author bring to the argument? What is the author including or omitting from the argument? Who is the author trying to convince? What kind of ethos does the writer create? Why is this argument being made now and here? These same questions are relevant if the text is a sales report, a letter to the editor, a campaign speech, or a classroom policy statement. And these questions are relevant whether the student is creating the text or responding to someone else’s text.

In our TA training program, we also discuss that people do not usually write about uncontested facts (e.g., Lee surrendered) but rather about the meaning of those facts (Is Lee a hero? What was the significance of the war’s close? Did the war really end then? For whom is the war important and why?). This focus on rhetorical analysis is not necessarily a liberal stance.

Liberals, who tend to believe that reality is known only through language and past experiences, often enjoy discussing how different interpretations of reality produce different conclusions about individual and society. For example, staff who ask students to spend one or two weeks analyzing and critiquing feminist positions have sometimes been accused of devoting an entire semester to feminist ideology; the reasons for that perception can make for fascinating discussion. I would hope that liberal instructors critique their own assumptions as carefully as they do someone else’s; I would hope conservative instructors do the same.

At its best, first-year composition reflects sound rhetorical research and theory as well as the views of the FYC committee that sets policy, faculty in English and other departments, deans and other administrators, students, and parents. As a university-wide requirement, it is (as others in my field have noted) a very public program. And it should be.

Margaret Graham

Director of First-Year

Composition