bringing lived cultures and experience to the wac classroom

362 Pages·2008·18.27 MB·English

UNIVEF<SIT'( or: H/\VVI\I'I LI[3J'?,/Jr:,:,y
BRINGING LIVED CULTURES AND EXPERIENCE TO THE WAC CLASSROOM:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED
NONTRADITIONAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
ENGLISH
MAY 2005
By
Kathleen J. Cassity
Dissertation Committee:
LaRene Despain, Chairperson
Jeff Carroll
Daphne Desser
Todd Sammons
Helen Slaughter
© Copyright 2005
by
Kathleen J. Cassity
111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mahalo nui loa to the nontraditional students who participated in this study, who
must remain anonymous, but without whose voices and generous cooperation this work
could not exist. You all know who you are, and I hope you know how much I appreciated
your contribution. I hope my work is, in turn, a contribution to all ofyou.
My own journey as a nontraditional student, from freshman to Ph.D., was
exceptionally long, arduous, and scattered with occasional minefields. I would not have
made it to completion without the help of those mentioned below.
To LaRene Despain, dissertation director extraordinaire: Without you, this
project wouldn't exist. Its very existence is testimony to your patience, encouragement,
and unwavering belief that I could cross the finish line. Words aren't enough.
To JeffCarroll, Daphne Desser, Todd Sammons, and Helen Slaughter: I
appreciated your careful reading, helpful suggestions, and supportive exchange of ideas.
The collegiality of the committee is what made it possible for me to finish.
To fellow grad students Tia Berger and Jill Dahlman: Thanks for sharing
information you discovered in her your own research with me. Onward and upward!
To Dauri/ Alden, Nell Altizer, Scott Anderson, Cristina Bacchi/ega, Bill
Burgwinkle, Bruce Bruschi, Paul Chandler, JeffDym, Peter Elbow, Monica Ghosh,
Craig Howes, Suzie Jacobs, Kristen and Matt Lau, Joy Logan, Glenn Man, Kristin
McAndrews, Stephen Page, Kathy Phillips, John Rieder, Connie Sherak. Diana Solomon,
Linda Walters-Page, and Roger Whitlock: Few things are as powerful as the combination
ofprofessional support and personal friendship. When I encountered the minefields, you
were the ones who helped me navigate. For that, you have my deepest gratitude.
To my close friends outside academia: Tom and Jackie Bartunek; Veronica
Cooper; Mary and Bob Lauch; Maxine Levaren; Kevin 0 'Connor and Julie Paulsen;
Lionel Smith; Dave and Rosie Wikstrom; Gayle Yoshikawa and Eric Humphries. Thanks
for the enthusiastic support, and for helping me keep it real. (Apologies to anyone I
inadvertently omitted.)
To the memory of my lifelong friend, Cindy Wikstrom Nishiyama: Her crazy,
fearless, carpe diem approach to life encouraged me to follow my own dreams. When
some thought I was nuts to return to college as a nontraditional student in my thirties,
Cindy said, "Go for it!" Then, while I was in the midst of studying for my Ph.D. exams,
she left this earth, far too soon. Cindy, your spirit still keeps me going.
iv
To my late parents, Terry and Muriel Browne: I'm glad you lived long enough to
see me start college, and wish you could have seen me finish. Thanks for teaching me so
much. You're both really still here.
To my sister Darlene Malvaney and brother Randall Browne, and to all my
extended family, both Brownes and Smiths: Thanks for the encouragement, support, ever-
present wicked sense of humor, and for giving me a world view that's truly one of a kind.
Finally, the deepest thanks ofall go to the two brightest lights in my life. I would
have achieved nothing without my favorite nontraditional student ofall, my husband,
Brian Cassity. Nothing I can say here can do justice to all you've given me. Part of the
reason my educational journey has been so lengthy is due to my son, Liam Cassity, who
made his appearance in the world between my comps and my dissertation. But far from
being a disruption, you are what makes all of it all worthwhile.
* * *
v
ABSTRACT
This dissertation addresses the increasing presence of nontraditional students in
college classrooms today, focusing on how nontraditional students draw upon lived
experience when writing across the curriculum-in Henry Giroux's terms, connecting the
"discourse of lived cultures" with the "discourse of textual analysis." I discuss various
definitions of"nontraditional student," present statistical information concerning the
increasing number of such students across the country, and consider how they are
represented in the media. After reviewing pertinent literature in adult education and
composition, I discuss my qualitative teacher-research methodology, which included
classroom observation, field notes, interviews, writing samples, and questionnaires.
I recruited nine nontraditiop.al students, gathered data from six participants, and
developed case studies on three. The questions focusing my inquiry address how
nontraditional student presence should shape our professional discussion and teaching
practice; the degree to which my participants experienced writing-related anxiety, and the
strategies they used to work through it; and how they drew upon lived ~ultures and
experiences when writing across the curriculum in order to negotiate their emerging
academic identities. My findings demonstrate that the study participants used their
experiences critically and reflectively in their academic writing-in Paulo Freire's words,
"bring[ing] subjectivity and objectivity into constant dialectical relationship."
Finally, I connect my findings with conversations in the field concerning the use
ofper~onalwriting in academic contexts, using frameworks offered by Candace
Spigelman, Jane E. Hindman, and Barbara Kamler. I discuss the theories of two adult
VI
educators-Malcolm Knowles' concept of"andragogy" and Timothy Quinnan's
articulation of the nontraditional student as postmodern phenomenon-with process, post-
process, and feminist composition theory, as well as with the critical theories of Paulo
Freire, Henry Giroux, and bell hooks. After discussing the relationship between
infantilization and oppression, I argue for abolishing the term "pedagogy" from college
contexts and suggest that we adopt Freire's concept of"praxis" as a more inclusive term.
I conclude by calling for a reflexive and dialogic approach to composition and WAC
which pays heed to the voices ofour students, traditional and nontraditional alike.
Vll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IV
ABSTRACT VI
LIST OF FIGURES Xl
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xu
Purpose of Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xu
Situating the Study Xlll
Overview of Methodology ............•......................... XIV
Chapter Outlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xvi
CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN
STUDENT POPULAnON 1
Introduction 1
Defining Nontraditional Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Where They Are: Distribution . . . . . 9
Resources for Nontraditional Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nontraditional Student as Questing Hero: Media Representations
and Their Limitations 17
Accommodating the Nontraditional Student: Where We
Are Currently . . .. 23
Nontraditional Students and Composition Studies 24
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEWING THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Adult Education: Recent Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Malcolm Knowles' Concept of Andragogy '" . . .. . . . .. 33
Timothy Quinnan: Andragogy and Critical Theory 40
Robert Sommer: Andragogy Meets Composition . . . . . . . . . .. 49
The Process Movement and "Expressivism". . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
Feminist Composition Studies and the Personal Narrative. . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Putting the Pieces Together. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82
Writing Across the Curriculum: Its Relationship
to Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86
Composition Scholarship Regarding Nontraditional Students 94
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111
Overview of Qualitative Methodology ,. 111
Teacher Research: Goals. Challenges. and Ethics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
Safeguards Taken to Preserve Integrity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119
Vlll
Definine Feminist MethodololD' 122
Study Design and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123
About the Course:
Institutional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126
Syllabus and Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126
Writing Assignments and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 128
Classroom Demographics 129
Recruitment Procedure " 133
Permissions and Informed Consent 135
Research Questions and Their Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 136
Sources of Data 139
Situatine Myself as Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142
Limitations of Study and Possible Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146
CHAPTER FOUR: OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151
Data Gathering, Codine, and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151
Introducine the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157
Findines: First Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161
Discussion: Grouped Responses to Questionnaire #1 161
Findines: Second Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 166
Findines: Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182
Research Question: Writine Apprehension and Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . .. 197
Interpretation: Solutions to Writing Apprehension 203
Research Question: Neeotiating Academic Identities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206
Making Connections: A Trip To the Liehthouse 208
Research Question: Nontraditional Student Voices
in the Academic Conversation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 219
Case Studies: Rationale for Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 222
Interpretive Framework: Knowles' Model ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 225
CHAPTER FIVE: "YOUR CULTURAL
PRACTICES DETERMINE YOUR QUEST FOR PEACE" 231
A Case Study of Carolyn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 231
CHAPTER SIX: "FORESHADOWING TREMENDOUS
TRANSFORMATION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 252
A Case Study of Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 252
CHAPTER SEVEN: "WHAT ARE YOU?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 272
A Case Study of Christina 272
Summary: Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 287
IX
CHAPTER EIGHT: THE END OF PEDAGOGY .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 289
In Conversation: Adult Education and Composition Studies 289
Process? Post-Process?: Varieties of Nontraditional
Student-Friendly Teachine Practices 297
Authority, The Ethic of Care, "Andraeoer," and Feminism " .. 300
The End of Pedaeoer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 302
Beyond Terminoloer: Toward a Non-Infantilizine
"Border Praxis" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 306
DialoKical Teachina= 309
APPENDICES....................................... . . 313
I: Informed Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 313
II: Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 316
III: Invitation to Participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 318
IV: First Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 320
V: Second Questionnaire 323
WORKS CONSULTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 327
x
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE:
1. Student Enrollment, Beginning of F2003 Semester: Section 1 131
2. Student Enrollment, End ofF2003 Semester: Section 1 131
3. Student Enrollment, Entire F2003 Semester: Section 2 131
4. Grouped Responses to Questionnaire #1 162
5. Responses to Questionnaire #2: Comfort Level and Challenges 167
6. Attributes of Discomfort and Sources of Challenge 169
7. Questionnaire #2: Perceptions ofNeeds, Attributes and Challenges 174
8. Self-perceptions ofNontraditional Student Strengths 175
9. Educational Backgrounds ofRespondents' Parents 176
10. Self-described Class Backgrounds of Participants 177
11. Participants' Perceptions of Personal Writing in College 179
Xl