Embracing FYC as a General Education Course

Miles, Libby et al. “Thinking Vertically.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 503-511. Web. 1 Oct 2013

            In “Thinking Vertically,” Libby Miles et al. argue that first-year students should be taught “situated procedural knowledge”(576). Miles et al support a vertical curricula, which includes the following principles: recursion over time, core courses common to all majors, and situated production in a variety of contexts over time. This curriculum is spread out over several courses, which could be several semesters or years for students. For example, basic writing concepts would be presented in 100 level courses, and 200 level courses, which would have students from a variety of disciplines, would be argumentative writing and digital writing. Compositionist would design courses in sequences that connect to and build on one another. The aim of this, according to the authors, is to present transferable knowledge. This will help students make connections across/between disciplines. Vertical curriculum encourages the idea of FYC as a general education course, freeing FYC to be designed based on the different needs of the students and to design a menu of advanced writing courses, providing different situations for student writers. This curriculum leaves space for multiple research models and course designs in order to champion the hybrid, multimodal, and interdisciplinary nature of writing studies. They argue against teaching students to be scholars, as all students do not want to become academics. The aim of the vertical curriculum is for students to become independent and critical thinkers intellectuals.

            Although, this article is over 5 years old, it is important for rhetoric and composition instructors because there is still debate about the goal of FYC and its role in the University. This article was originally written in response to Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s article about FYC being transformed into a writing studies or writing about writing course. Since then writing about writing has taken off (even being presented as WAW). However, the debate about what it means to teach writing and what pedagogical approaches should be used in FYC continue. In my research, this was the only articles that embraced FYC as a general education course. This is interesting and valuable information given that most in the rhetoric and composition field resist this label. What is gained in embracing FYC as a general education course? Would moving toward a generic approach to writing instruction help students to write in a variety of disciplines? This article attempts to define the role of FYC. Should the course prepare students to write within the discipline? Should the course prepare students to write in the university (across multiple disciplines) It is important to define the role of this course within the university, as FYC impacts perceptions of English Studies as a discipline, incoming students, and our individual research and classroom practices.