Book Review

Rhode-Elise St. Jacques

Professor Barbara Gleason

ENGL B2802: Basic Writing Theory and Pedagogy

December 16, 2014

Writing and the First-Year Community College Student

In their book, The Community College Writer: Exceeding Expectations, researchers and professors Howard Tinberg and Jean-Paul Nadeau report on a research they conducted on the experiences of first year community college students enrolled in composition and how these students acclimate in their new environment and respond to the responsibilities that come with being college students. Tinberg and Nadeau sought to uncover these students’ relationship to writing. This research was done at Bristol Community College in Massachusetts where the researchers work as English professors.  Published in 2010 by the Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English, this book sheds light on an area that has not been sufficiently researched.  The purpose of this book is to bring to light the particularities of this population.  Divided into five chapters within which are many headings, this short, 149-page book provides an easy read.

The first chapter of the book, Introduction and Rationale, contains brief narratives about Tinberg and Nadeau, which portray the authors as credible authority figures of the subject.  Tinberg is a first-generation college student whose Jewish refugee parents stressed the importance of acquiring a good education.  When he was in college, Tinberg held down employment.  Nadeau is the son of two educators.  Like his colleague, he also worked while pursuing higher education.  Having experienced juggling work and school and for Tinberg, having been the first in his family to go to college, means that they can identify with the students they serve.  Their experiences as writing center tutors allowed them to be faced with and understand the frustrations many students feel when it comes to writing assignments.

After the biographies, there is a short section on the works of other scholars such as Mina Shaughnessy “whose painstaking analysis of student placement essays led so many to regard the work of teaching basic writers as a serious academic pursuit” (15).  They also refer to Albert Kitzhaber and credit him as having conducted one of the first major studies on student writing at Dartmouth College in the 1960s.  Tinberg and Nadeau’s study is impacted by Kitzhaber’s as the designs are alike, the research methods and the research goals are similar, and the studies both share two central questions

For Tinberg and Nadeau, the purpose of the study was to uncover how writing engages students and how prepared first-year college students are for college level writing and for writing across the disciplines.  Their goal was to “give voice to students who have yet to be heard: community college writers” (19).  To answer their questions, the authors identified five key questions crucial to their research.  These questions found on page 3 of the book are as follows:

1.      How much writing was assigned beyond the required basic and college-level writing courses?  Were students prepared for the volume of writing required?

2.      To what extent were the students writing in genres other than the essay?  Did students expect to write in modes other than the academic essay?

3.      What role did revision have in writing instruction at the college?  How did students’ understanding of this task differ from that of faculty?

4.      When faculty assessed student writing, was the emphasis on higher- or lower-order concerns?  Did faculty feedback match student expectations?

5.      How extensive was faculty commentary on student writing?  What purpose did that commentary serve?  To explain a grade?  To guide revision?  Both?  How did students process the commentary?

The authors do a good job of outlining the information in their book.  Chapter two of the book, Design and Method, as the title suggests reports how the researchers designed their study and the methods they used to effectuate it.  This chapter is broken up into eleven sections, making it easy for the reader to find information within each segment.  Sections within chapters is consistent throughout the book.  Chapter 2 contains how the study was done, how the participants were selected and how the information was gathered.  Seventy faculty from the various disciplines responded to thirty-one statements on a Likert scale.  Questions that were asked included how the faculty thinks student writers view themselves, how important writing is to the students’ potential future careers, student motivation, the types of feedback instructors provide and how prepared they believed students are for college.

Eleven faculty members representing the college’s six academic departments took part of the cohort.  They were chosen in part because writing is a required element in their courses.  It is unclear what the other criteria for selection were.  The instructors were interviewed one-on-one for about forty-five minutes.  These interviews were casual and the questions they were asked were standardized such as how long they’ve been at BCC and how they respond to student writing. 

The researchers explain the process for selecting and surveying students.  A total of 1,443 first time students from BCC and four other community colleges were surveyed.  One third of those students were from BCC.  Like the faculty, these students responded to statements on a Likert scale.  Among the twenty-seven statements the students were asked, topics included how they viewed themselves as writers, how they viewed teacher feedback, how prepared they felt they were for college writing and how important was writing to their future careers.

For Tinberg and Nadeau, choosing the BCC students that would form the cohort proved arduous.  Their efforts included speaking at orientations and sending out emails.  Twenty students originally responded and fifteen ultimately committed to participating in the study.  These students were interviewed at the beginning and at the end of the term to assess how they grew after the completion of their first semester in college.  In the first interview, among other questions, they were asked to assess their writing, their experience with writing and the type of writing they expected to be required in college. 

In the third chapter, What Community College Faculty Expect, the authors start by providing a brief glimpse of the faculty that work at community colleges.  The bulk of the faculty of community colleges is part-time.  “As of 2004, 66 percent of the faculty at public two-year college were part time, as compared to 36 percent at  four-year colleges” (36).  The high percentage of part time faculty is alarming considering the amount work that is required of them including the pressure of having to successfully serve many students deemed not college ready.

The results of the faculty survey led the researchers to recommend that professors reassess their instructional strategies.  Most instructors believe that writing is not only crucial for college success but for success in the workplace as well.  Thirty-one percent of respondents viewed students as unprepared “at the end of the course to succeed with challenging writing assignments” (39).  Another disconcerting fact is that 97% of instructors responded that they focused on lower order concerns such as mechanics when providing feedback of student work. 

The fourth chapter, Student Expectations and Practices, reports on the findings of the student surveys as well as sheds light on the students in the cohort, the lives they lead outside of school and how their responsibilities affect their academic performance.  The students in the cohort are hardworking and ambitious.  Ranging from the ages of 18 to 40, many are balancing jobs, family responsibilities and school.  This chapter also offers an in-depth look of six of the students in the cohort, providing background information such as their experiences in high school, and detailing their lives at the time of the study.

In this chapter, many discrepancies between student responses and faculty responses are made evident.  Students report working a lot harder than their instructors believed that they did.  For example, 57% of students reported writing multiple drafts but only 13% of faculty believed that they did.  While 95% of faculty believed that writing will be an important skill to students’ future careers, only 48% of students agreed.  Nine percent of students reported evading writing intensive courses yet 58% of faculty believed that students did. 

The students’ responses illustrate the disillusionments they had previously held about college.  Many felt discouraged with the amount and difficulty of reading that was now required of them.  They were also not ready for the amount of writing and rewriting they were now being asked to do.  Yet, many communicated an unwillingness to change their prior habits.  Students had difficulty understanding the comments made on their essays by their professors and therefore tended to only address surface comments only and not look through their papers for similar mistakes.

In the fifth and last chapter of the book, Implications for Teaching and Research, Tinberg and Nadeau offer suggestions for better pedagogical practice.  Instructions for assignments must be clear and explicitly stated.  Professors must provide scaffolds such as breaking up challenging assignments in incremental steps.  Exemplary work must be given to students as models for what instructors expect.  An area of great concern is the misunderstanding of instructor feedback.  

[Students] assiduously follow the teacher’s surface recommendations and disregard the deeper suggestions regarding content and argumentation.  They prefer global, non-directive, and positive comments but make changes mainly to surface, directive and negative ones…they want lots and certain kinds of response, but have trouble doing much with what they ask for’” (124).

Scheduling one-on-one conferences with their students is a great way instructors can ensure that students understand their feedback and are on the right path.  Such conferences can also help break the barriers between students and their instructors.

The research as left its mark on Tinberg and Nadeau.  They hope to continue to work with the students in the cohort as they move on to college level courses.  Tinberg reports that part of his role is to help students write across the disciplines.  Unfortunately he sees himself as not quite capable to do that and it pains him that “the most intense conversation about writing continues to take place in the required writing course” (128) and not in courses beyond that.  Nadeau now strives to make his courses even more student-centered than before.  The researchers believe that more similar research should be done to uncover how non-English instructors provide feedback to their students.

The Community College Writer: Exceeding Expectations is a valuable book.  Having been published only almost five years ago, the information is still valuable.  However, one implication not suggested by the authors is a similar research on adult ELLs new to college.  A subsequent study should focus on their particular issues such as language and culture challenges they face as they attempt to navigate American higher education.  This study would be even more meaningful if the participants were Basic English students.

Howard Tinberg and Jean-Paul Nadeau accomplished their goal of bringing to light the challenges of first year college students.  They explained their struggles and provided for instructors valuable instructional implications.  The Community College Writer: Exceeding Expectations is appropriate for instructors and administrators who wish to better understand and serve their students.