University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

""Strangers in Academia"": African-American and Latinx writers' perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies

(USC Thesis Other)

""Strangers in Academia"": African-American and Latinx writers' perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: “STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA:” AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 1

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX WRITERS’
PERCEPTIONS OF THE INFLUENCE OF ANDRAGOGICAL STRATEGIES

by

Nareen Manoukian

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Nareen Manoukian
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 2
Acknowledgements
When I began this journey of graduate school years ago, three programs ago, I had no
idea what questions I would eventually think to ask—the ones that would guide my research and
my intellectual curiosity. I could not have foreseen that I would ultimately follow this quest for
knowledge and my passion for both teaching and learning to the threshold of a doctoral program.
While I have not uncovered all of the answers I seek, I have now assembled the necessary tools
which will enable me to answer the questions that arise as I continue in my profession. Along
this journey, I was fortunate enough to engage with some brilliant faculty and wise mentors. Dr.
Alan Green, who discussed not only my research with me but also his own musings and
philosophies over office hour conversations, has been the cornerstone of my learning at Rossier.
I could not have hoped to work with a more thoughtful, open-minded, and generous dissertation
chair. If I can do for my students what he has done for me, I would know that my work has had
real meaning and impact. Dr. Artineh Samkian, with her eternal patience, was equally giving,
both with the books she lent me, as well has her sage advice and writing feedback. I also extend
my gratitude to Dr. Nooshin Valizadeh, who encouraged me at every turn to broaden my
horizons, apply for grants, and submit my work to conferences. I am grateful to have crossed
paths and worked with Dr. William Watkins at CSUN, perhaps the most incredible higher
education administrator I have ever known.
I must also acknowledge my parents for believing, before I even know, all of things I am
capable of accomplishing, for filling my childhood home with scores of books in four languages,
for teaching me the love of learning, for encouraging me in the pursuit of a noble and often
thankless profession, and for leading by example. Thank you to Saro for continuously setting the
bar higher and higher and for cheering me on each time I caught up. Thank you to Ryan, who
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 3
recognized the importance of my pursuit of learning and my work and who supported me even
when it put 3,000 miles between us.
Thank you to the student writers of Pasadena City College, Los Angeles City College,
Los Angeles Valley College, Azusa Pacific University, California State University, Los Angeles,
and California Institute of Technology. I have been fortunate to know and teach you, and to
learn from you how to be better. I am grateful for how much you have enriched my professional
endeavors, my personal ideologies, and my teaching.
Finally, although this will not be my magnum opus, it is my most extensive effort thus
far. Accordingly, I wish to dedicate this endeavor to the memory of my friend Posho, who was
my greatest and most stalwart companion through my years in graduate school, and to Batya as
well, who took up the torch in her absence.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 2
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 5
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 6
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 9
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................. 11
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 12
Delimitations of the Study ..................................................................................................... 13
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................ 13
Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 14
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 15
Origins of Freshman Composition and Basic Writing ............................................................ 15
The Failure of Remediation and the Future of Basic Writing ................................................. 20
Discourse Community Membership and Restoring Agency ................................................... 35
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS ......................................................................... 43
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 43
Research Design and Methods ............................................................................................... 44
Site and Population Selection ................................................................................................ 44
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 48
Validity ................................................................................................................................. 49
Role of Researcher ................................................................................................................ 49
Researcher’s Positionality ..................................................................................................... 50
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 51
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND THEMES ........................................... 52
Overview of Participants ....................................................................................................... 53
Emergent Themes ................................................................................................................. 57
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 78
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................ 79
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................... 81
Implications for Practice and Research .................................................................................. 85
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 87
References ................................................................................................................................ 89
Appendix A: Recruitment Email ............................................................................................... 96
Appendix B: Pre-survey Questions ............................................................................................ 97
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................ 99
Appendix D: Information Sheet............................................................................................... 103

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 5
List of Tables

Table 1: Highland Community College’s Basic Writer Demographic Information……………..45

Table 2: Demographics of Interview Participants…………………………………..…………...53

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………..26

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 7
Abstract
This qualitative study examined the perspectives of African-American and Latinx basic
writers at a two-year Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) in Southern California. While basic
education pass rates are regularly studied, there is a dearth of research focusing on basic writers’
perceptions of the impacts of andragogical strategies. This study aimed to uncover African-
American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the impact of andragogical strategies on their
success in their basic writing course and on their overall writing identity development. The
sample used in this study included eight students enrolled in basic writing who are either
African-American or Latinx.
The findings suggest that African-American and Latinx basic writers feel that
constructive feedback and supportive andragogy contribute to a positive academic writing
identity and feelings of inclusion and membership in the academic writing community.
Moreover, their performance in their basic writing class suffers when they are confronted with
negative feedback or authoritative andragogy. Relatable themes and subjects, as well as a
culturally relevant curriculum, appear to serve as a point of entry into academic discourse that
may otherwise feel inaccessible. Recommendations for practice include the need for writing
program administrators to organize learning opportunities during which faculty and
administrators alike would be encouraged to examine, confront, and question their own
ideological biases concerning basic writing students. Recommendations also include modified
basic writing curricula which are more culturally relevant, as well as assigned reading texts
which include positive representations of people of color.

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 8
Keywords: Basic Writing, Latinx, African-American, Andragogy, Academic Writing Identity
Development, Discourse Community Membership

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
With the start of each academic year, incoming students enrolling in composition courses
quickly become actors in an enduring problem that composition programs across university
contexts face. While many students place directly into college level courses, up to 40% of all
first-time college students are placed pre-college level courses (NCES, 2013). Students who are
placed in these basic writing classes have demonstrated a lack of preparedness in academic
writing. While the goal of basic writing is to prepare students for written interaction with the
academy in the appropriate mode, the results are often less than ideal. Within the California
State University (CSU) system, as an example, there is evidence of a struggle to overhaul basic
education that spans at least two decades.
Beginning in the fall of 1998, Executive Order 665 aimed to improve writing
competency, as well as proficiency in college algebra, at an accelerated pace by pushing students
to complete the basic skills sequence quickly or face consequences. If all non-credit
developmental coursework was not completed in the first year, students would be “stopped out”
of the university and required to complete the developmental work at a community college
during an academic leave from the university (The California State University, n.d.). Not only
did this not result in acceleration of the passing of requirements, it instead caused further
disruption in the college experiences of students who were “stopped out.” This Executive Order
has largely been superseded by Executive Order 1100, in which the CSU’s punitive approach has
been replaced with a move toward supportive course models that offer academic skill building in
credit-bearing courses (The California State University, n.d.). Although programs will continue
to evolve and develop as trends in basic writing education change, one thing is clear: this
glimpse of the state of basic writing during last two decades in the largest four-year public
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 10
university system in the United States indicates that all is not well and that there are regular
mobilized efforts to improve basic writing programs.
Statement of the Problem
Since their inception, the purpose of developmental classes has been to facilitate success
for academically underprepared students. The percentage of students who are deemed
underprepared for college coursework is significant; within six years of their initial enrollment at
public two-year colleges, 68% of students took one or more developmental courses (Chen &
Simone, 2016). Nearly two-thirds of two-year colleges stated that their students take at least a
year of developmental coursework on average (Melguizo, Hagedorn, & Cypers, 2008).
While many first-time freshmen are placed in developmental courses, course enrollment
statistics point to an imbalanced representation of different ethnic groups. Developmental
classes are a critical drop-off point for many African-American and Latinx students in higher
education, and, at minority-serving institutions, the proportion of students that completes the
developmental course sequence has been less (Zhang, 2000). At two-year public colleges, 78%
of African-American students and 75% of Latinx students took a developmental course during
college, as compared to 65% of White students (Chen & Simone, 2016). This indicates an
overrepresentation of students of color in developmental classes. Furthermore, there is a
significant difference in the pass rates of these groups. Evidence that points to an observable
correlation between a passing grade in basic writing and race indicates that African-American
and Latinx students are less likely to complete a developmental course than their White and
Asian classmates (Bettinger & Long, 2005).
While there is much research both questioning and supporting the efficacy of basic
writing, the influence of andragogical strategies on basic writers’ success and writing identity
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 11
development is an important and understudied factor in the equation of student success. The
effect of andragogical strategies on underprepared writers who are considered academic “others”
and who may be unsure themselves of their belonging in higher education, while also occupying
a marginalized space in society in general due to racial oppression, is understudied. This study
will examine students’ perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies, which are rooted
in ideology.
Purpose of the Study
While there are many factors that affect the success and writing development of basic
writers, this study will seek to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of African-
American and Latinx basic writers in one public two-year college. The purpose of this study is
to examine basic writers’ perceptions of the impact of their writing teacher’s andragogical
strategies on their success and development as writers.
Added insight into the experiences of minoritized students in basic writing will help
construct approaches for fostering better outcomes for this population and to enable them to
succeed by better supporting them. Moreover, this study will aim to answer the following
research questions:
1. What are African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the
andragogical strategies used in their writing course?
2. How do African-American and Latinx basic writers perceive these andragogical
strategies influencing their success and writing identity development?
This study is guided by the epistemology of postcolonial theory, with an understanding of
social identity theory and how social identities are perceived. Using a postcolonial lens allows
for the examination of the relationships between basic writing students and their instructor, while
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 12
privileging the perspective of the student. This is an appropriate outlook to adopt for studying
African-American and Latinx basic writers because people of these racial and ethnic
backgrounds frequently experience social oppression; these feelings of marginalization may be
carried into the classroom and compounded by institutional placement in basic writing; this study
examines whether andragogical strategies have the power to either compound or alleviate these
feelings of marginalization.
Significance of the Study
The difference in pass rates is important to address because demonstrating college-level
competency in writing is an essential skill required for undertaking the remainder of college
coursework. If writing competency is not achieved, courses meant for skill-building instead
function as a gatekeeper to college, and this affects students of color more acutely.
Understanding the underlying causes of the disparity in basic skills pass rates is a necessary step
to addressing the ongoing achievement gap. Furthermore, even with a programmatic change to a
stretch composition model, which is a cohort-based composition program that stretches a one-
semester college composition course over the span of two semesters as a credit-bearing
alternative to basic writing, the concept of an “other” class of writers remains. If those
“academic others” exist, then corresponding andragogical strategies will inevitably exist to
dictate interactions between faculty and students.
The narratives collected in this study and the subsequent analysis of students’ perceptions
of how andragogical strategies affect their success and development as writers can potentially
improve the practice of writing program administrators and faculty in their work with basic
writers. This study can support the development of equity-oriented curricula and can inform
professional development for faculty and administrators.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 13
Delimitations of the Study
This study draws from the experiences of students at one public two-year institution, and
no four-year universities. Furthermore, this study focused only on students who are placed in
basic writing by an institutional placement test. It did not include students who self-place, since
much of the stigma resulting from institutional placement is removed. This study also excluded
students in stretch composition, as this option is not necessarily considered developmental and is
still in a nascent state at many institutions.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study present some things for consideration. The narratives
illuminating African-American and Latinx students’ experiences and perspectives will not be
generalizable to students at private or four-year institutions. The institution chosen for this study
is a public, two-year community college and is a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI). Because of
the population this study focused on, it was important to select an institution at which a large
population of students of these demographic backgrounds can be found, as opposed to a
Predominantly White Institution (PWI).
Although ethnic and racial identity is one component of social identity, social identities
are complex and aggregate; students may embody various identities or combinations of identities
concerning immigration status, documentation status, or experiences of racial oppression, to
name a few. As a result, common or shared experiences may be lacking, and this study may
produce inconclusive results. Moreover, participants may not be entirely honest because initial
contact regarding participation in their study will be facilitated by their professor. A small and
non-probability sample will minimize generalizability to all minoritized basic writers. Also, the
findings may have limited application to students who are in other basic writing programs, such
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 14
as a stretch composition model that uses directed self-placement, which is in its nascent stage at
the institution in this study and is offered alongside traditional basic writing options.
Definitions
African-American Vernacular English – a rule-governed variety of American English used in
African-American speech communities (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
Basic writing – refers to composition courses in higher education which are below college-level,
focus on writing skill building, and typically bear no credit toward graduation
Directed self-placement – refers to any program which offers guidance in the form of counseling
or surveys that assists incoming college freshman in determining which level of composition is
most appropriate for them
Mainstreaming – the process of placing students who would have otherwise been placed in basic
writing into college-level composition
Stretch composition – a cohort-based composition program which stretches a one-semester
college composition course over the span of two semesters and is offered for credit as an
alternative to basic writing
Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of this study which examines African-American and
Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of andragogical strategies on their success in their writing
course and development as writers. In this chapter, the current problem of the overrepresentation
of students of color in basic writing and the disparity in pass rates, as well as the purpose of this
study is covered. The following chapter reviews literature that provides the greater context of
this problem and will identify the gap in the literature concerning how students’ perceptions of
andragogical strategies affect their success and development as writers.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This review of literature will establish the context for examining the experiences that
African-American and Latinx basic writers currently navigate. The issues associated with basic
writing are explored, as well as the likely avenues of future programming and issues that new
programs may or may not address. To fully explore African-American and Latinx basic writers’
perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies on their success in their writing course
and their writing identity development, this review of literature will examine andragogical
strategies
Origins of Freshman Composition and Basic Writing
Basic writing as a remedy to incoming students’ lack of preparedness in academic
English and composition is not a new response new problem. In fact, writing that is considered
problematic has been present since the dawn of college composition as a field of study. Since
the inception of the first writing entrance exam in 1874 at Harvard College, incoming students
have failed writing placement exams (Ohmann, 1995). Harvard’s first iteration of the writing
entrance exam, which half of the tested students failed, resulted in the first freshman composition
course offering beginning in 1885 and, subsequently, a required freshman composition course
beginning in 1897 (Ohmann, 1995). Indeed, college composition itself was originally intended
not to teach writing, but to remedy substandard writing.
This is partly because academic English, which is the expected register of Standard
English for most postsecondary student writing, is a new language to all students, even those
already proficient in English; therefore, for many nonnative English speakers or for students of
minoritized backgrounds who are users of nonstandard varieties of English, a freshman
composition course often presents a double-challenge. If students are not yet proficient in
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 16
Standard English, they are then twice removed from the customary language of the academy
because they must first become proficient in English before producing writing that adheres to the
conventions of academic English. For these students, the distance between Englishes, or, the
conflict between their home language variety and the language of the academy, most often
enhances the difficulties they encounter in the course.
Basic writing courses – also previously called “remedial” writing courses, a term now
considered pejorative – were originally implemented as alternatives to college composition with
the intent to “remedy” writing that the institution regards as not meeting the standard of college
writing. “Basic writing,” a term that has been challenged since Mina Shaughnessy first coined it
in the 1970s, is “the field concerned with teaching writing to students not yet deemed ready for
first-year composition” (Journal of Basic Writing, n.d.). However, while the term is called into
question, this field is still regularly referred to as such in both The Journal of Basic Writing and
among the scholars who contribute to the field, perhaps for lack of a better, universally-accepted
term.
Critics of basic writing point out that to address the needs of students whose English
variety is the most distant from academic English, the institution’s response has traditionally
taken the form of a kind of hegemonic pedagogy which only magnifies the conflict between
students’ home dialect and the language of the academy. Shor (1997) likened basic writing to
apartheid, while Soliday (1994) pointed out that basic writers, who are often first generation,
low-income or racial minorities, commonly become literate within their own language
communities, and this can result in distance between their learned English variety and academic
English. In fact, in basic skills courses, African-American and Latinx students are
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 17
overrepresented compared to their participation in higher education; in California, they are
almost 60% of the students in developmental classes (Melguizo, Hagedorn, & Cypers, 2008).
Programmatic Shifts in Basic Writing
Questions regarding the efficacy of basic writing in particular have not evaded
researchers. Basic writing programs have been under scrutiny for decades with division among
scholars on whether to reform them or replace them entirely. Bartholomae (1993) argued that
basic writing produces basic writers while simultaneously conceding that eliminating these
classes may destroy the only haven underprepared students have in higher education. White
(1995) reasoned that preserving basic writing is necessary to preserve diversity in higher
education, and Mutnick (1996) forecasted that the elimination of basic writing runs the risk of
erasing whole populations of students from higher education altogether and will result in a
“whiter, more middle-class university.” Abolishing basic writing in favor of mainstreaming
students into college composition will likely serve to further diminish the participation of lower-
income students, of immigrant populations, and students of color in higher education (McNenny,
2001). In her book Errors and Expectations, the first of its kind and the seminal text in the field
of basic writing, Shaughnessy (1977) wrote that her book “is concerned with the orientations and
perceptions of teachers in relation to a specific population of student writers” and that it is based
upon the premise that “programs are not the answers to learning problems of students but that
teachers are and that, indeed, good teachers create good programs.” However, since
Shaughnessy’s (1977) call to attention on teacher ideology and andragogy, little research has
focused on these two factors in the equation of student writing success and has instead focused
on program reform.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 18
One alternative that has risen to the top of the debate, and is included in the CSU
system’s Executive Order 1110, is the stretch composition program. Stretch composition, a
program design which originated in 1994 at Arizona State University, is typically a year-long
credit-bearing alternative to the noncredit preparatory basic writing classes some students must
take before college-level composition (Collins & Lynch, 2001). To many critics of basic
writing, this approach is an improvement because it would ideally allow students the extended
opportunity to become proficient in both Standard English and academic writing without the
stigma of being placed in basic writing. Furthermore, because the stretch course carries credit, it
is less likely to produce demoralizing effects in enrolled students. A stretch model will surely
alleviate many issues surrounding the basic writing versus mainstreaming debate, such as
concerns surrounding the accuracy of institutional testing and placement and the relationship
between course credit and motivation. In fact, many of the institutions which are adopting
stretch composition programs are also piloting directed self-placement, through which students
are guided with orientations, counseling, or surveys to place themselves in the course which they
believe corresponds to their skill level, as opposed to institutional placement by means of a
single exam.
While data indicate improved retention and success rates for students in stretch
composition (Collins & Lynch, 2001), it is not yet possible to say whether that is a result of a
newer, truly effective program design, which, among the other aforementioned factors, uses a
cohort model, or if it is simply the result of self-selecting faculty who voluntarily enlist to
participate in stretch pilot programs. Additionally, the obvious absence of faculty hostile to basic
writers within the pilot programs may also enhance the positive results. If pilot programs’
positive results are largely due to the overrepresentation of instructors who are ideologically
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 19
aligned with students who are placed in basic writing, then we can expect the improved retention
and success rates to diminish after the pilot studies are completed and stretch is implemented
across the board and taught by all instructors, and not just those with an ideological investment
in basic writers. Once all instructors are invited to teach stretch, the initial positive results may
average out. Then, ultimately, stretch composition is only a nominal change when problematic
pedagogy once again resumes.
Furthermore, these reforms do not necessarily remedy the poor design or curricula of
basic writing programs, and evidence indicates that curricula that are poorly designed diminish
student success (White, 1995); this problem certainly appears in traditional basic writing but is
by no means unique to it. It may continue in stretch composition, once stretch composition is
made to be the norm. Perhaps of greatest concern is that these reforms do not ensure that
students are presented with course content that empowers and enables them to participate, nor
does it call into question the “middle class institutions [higher education] represents” (McNenny,
2001).
While the debate on whether basic writing is effective or counterproductive continues,
pre-college-level writing coursework, in whatever form it takes, whether for credit or not, has
become inextricably woven in the fabric of American higher education. Because these courses
often focus on errors of usage and use grammar workbooks and exercises to eradicate these
errors, for students of color, evaluation of basic writing frequently highlights deficits and
neglects to consider the cultural capital that students outside of the dominant culture bring to
academia (Agnew & McLaughlin, 2001). Evidence still points to basic writing benefiting White
and Asian students disproportionately (Bettinger & Long, 2005; Boylan, Bliss, and Bonham,
1993; McCabe, 2000) and presenting a sometimes insurmountable obstacle for minoritized
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 20
students. Rote grammar exercises and the oft-used banking method (Freire, 2000) employed in
basic writing as a means of initiating writers into academic writing conventions can turn literacy
into confrontation; this can transform the teaching of Standard English into a tool for oppression,
rather than harnessing the transformative potential of a composition course to make room for
students’ multiple literacies.
The Failure of Remediation and the Future of Basic Writing
The requirement of completing developmental coursework is a common phenomenon for
many new enrollees in American higher education institutions. Anywhere from 28 to 40 percent
of all first-time freshmen are placed in at least one developmental course across university
contexts (NCES, 2013). Among two-year institutions, nearly two-thirds stated that their students
averaged at least a year of developmental coursework (Melguizo, Hagedorn, & Cypers,
2008). Developmental education is costly, but it would not be under such scrutiny if it yielded
positive results. In addition to being costly, instead of preparing enrolled students for college-
level work, these courses are counterproductive in many cases. Students who are placed in
developmental classes tend to have lower attainment rates than their peers who begin
postsecondary work at college-level. Of the students who have been placed in a developmental
course, fewer than 50 percent complete the requirement. Furthermore, fewer than 25 percent of
students who are placed in a developmental course at a community college demonstrate any
discoverable milestone, such as a certificate or degree, within eight years (NCES, 2013).
While many first-time freshmen are placed in developmental composition courses, there
is an imbalance in the representation of different ethnic groups in these classes and a discrepancy
in the success rates of these groups. There is a significant disparity between the percentage of
African-American, White, and Latinx first year undergraduate students placed in developmental
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 21
English composition. Whereas 31.3% of White students who were first year undergraduate
students in 2007-2008 took a developmental course during college, 45.1% and 42.7% of African-
American and Hispanic students respectively took a developmental course during college
(NCES, 2013). This points to an overrepresentation of students of color placed in developmental
classes. In addition to the overrepresentation of students of color, there is a discrepancy in the
rates of success that students from different ethnic groups demonstrate. While the purpose of
these classes is to assist all underprepared students in eventually taking on college-level
coursework, Bettinger and Long’s (2005) study found that students who successfully completed
their developmental writing coursework were more likely to be Asian or White non-Hispanic and
were more academically prepared than their Hispanic and African-American
counterparts. Often, as was the case with Executive Order 665, courses with the objective of
facilitating student success do not result in a higher level of attainment among students but
instead function as an obstacle for many students of color.
Much of the basic skills literature (Bettinger & Long, 2005; Calcagno & Long, 2008)
focuses on outcomes, and the efficacy of these courses is debated based on these
outcomes. However, this kind of “black box” evaluation (Grubb, 2001), by which
recommendations are made based on outcomes data, with little consideration or awareness of
curriculum, instruction, or placement practices, does not consider what happens inside the
classroom to affect success rates. These many variables are understudied, and the body of
literature on the impact of in-class factors, such as andragogical strategies, is far from robust. In
order for meaningful programmatic shifts to occur, curricula, as well as institutional,
departmental, and instructional ideology must be examined.
Curriculum
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 22
Non-credit, skill-building college composition classes have gone by many names through
the years, such as “developmental” and “basic skills;” while they are all challenged and
contested, one name— “remedial”—is perhaps the most telling one as it points to a deficit view
of writing pedagogy. Borrowing Bizzell’s (1986) definition, basic writers are the writers whose
home dialect differs the most from formal academic English, which is taught and valued in the
academy. Furthermore, for students who are not part of the dominant culture, academic English
is not likely to closely mirror the language they are used to hearing and using.
To address the needs of this population, a common response of higher education
institutions is to develop courses that are geared toward laying the language and literacy
foundation for students to eventually enter the academic language community (Bizzell,
1986). However, while writing development is complex and nuanced, the pedagogy that is most
often applied in the developmental classroom takes a reductive and remedial approach, which
pares down conceptual learning to granular skills and drills with the aim of repairing language
gaps (Fox, 1990). This monotonous form of rote learning is tiresome and promotes only passive
learning, if anything (Grubb 1999, 2013). While this is the most commonly employed pedagogy,
the approach of distilling writing instruction to a set of skills that can be acquired through
repetitive computer lab grammar lessons or workbook drills is a likely culprit behind low
engagement among developing writers (Callahan & Chumney, 2009). Students are more likely
to actively engage in learning when they are building their own conceptual understanding of an
unfamiliar discipline (Perun, 2017). Rote learning exercises, which break conceptual learning
down into smaller decontextualized units, like grammar drills, discourage authentic engagement
and do not create a pathway to future applications in any context (Perun, 2017).
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 23
A pedagogy stemming from deficit thinking (Valencia, 1997), which defines students by
their deficiencies, aims to distill writing down to a set of skills which can be taught in workbooks
or at computer workstations (Fox, 1990). This approach and, indeed, any approach that
“separates language features from intention and meaning for the purpose of ‘practice’” is a skills
approach; a consequence of this type of pedagogy for teachers is that they begin to understand
writing as a set of teachable techniques rather than an extension of culture (Fox, 1990). The
concept of deficit thinking, which is a theory of school failure specifically regarding minoritized
students, suggests that students who perform poorly in school do so as a result of their own
deficits and deficiencies (Valencia, 1997). Proponents of this kind of thinking do not look for
external factors that account for poor student performance, such as school failure or oppressive
policies and practices in education, to name a few (Valencia, 1997). Considering the prevalence
of this perspective, it is likely that while basic writing, or “remedial” writing, was originally
conceived to create a space in higher education for students who are not quite prepared, its intent
was also “to keep a group of people in their place” (Valencia, 1997).
Teacher Ideology
Often, deficit-oriented teachers can interpret unequal outcomes as resulting from student
ability or effort as opposed to stemming from their own biases, outlooks, beliefs, or actions
(Bensimon, 2005). Bensimon (2005) adapted Argyris and Schön’s (1978) concept of double-
loop learning to a higher education setting, in which teachers who operate from a single-loop
perspective externalize the problem of unequal outcomes, whereas double-loop learners, or
equity-minded teachers will call into question underlying causes of this problem. A single-loop
does not consider students’ social positions and the space they occupy or are permitted to occupy
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 24
in society and the impact of that in a classroom where English language standards are upheld or
policed in order to produce a composition.
Furthermore, with their understanding of the connection and interaction between theory
and day-to-day occurrences within the walls of higher education, Howard-Hamilton and Hinton
(2011) assert that it is faculty members’ responsibility to help students see their work and
themselves from a multicultural perspective. If this is not done, then classrooms become spaces
where artifacts of the dominant culture are presented and celebrated, and marginalized groups are
left with only an option to conform, which then limits their potential for growth and development
(Howard-Hamilton & Hinton, 2011). The deficit-based approach to writing curriculum
reproduces privilege in that it benefits students whose language and literacy mirrors that of the
dominant culture. It disproportionately harms students whose language or home dialect is not a
natural extension of the dominant culture’s language and literacy norms. Fox (1990) points to
the “bundle of interconnected ideologies,” which includes deficit thinking and skills-oriented
pedagogy as stripping not only the student but also the instructor of any authority. A highly
prescriptive, skills-focused curriculum leaves no room for instructors to ignite students’
enthusiasm or to foster authentic engagement with the course concepts, and this shifts our
understanding of how writing is produced toward something less holistic and, instead, as “a set
of techniques, not a product of culture” (Fox, 1990).
Grubb and Cox (2005) have discussed the importance of faculty perspectives and
attitudes toward basic writers and remedial education. In fact, instructor perspectives on
students’ ability and community belonging impacted students’ success in the course. Professors
who held their students to higher standards while validating students’ belonging to the academic
community inspired success and confidence in their students (Cox, 2009). Likewise, students
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 25
revealed in interviews that they were less apprehensive and ultimately more successful when
their professors interacted with them at their level of understanding to help them work through
the curriculum (Cox, 2009). Grubb and Cox (2005) suggest either weeding out instructors who
are hostile to students who enter colleges and universities with lower levels of preparation or
supporting them in modifying their attitudes and pedagogy.
In a six-year longitudinal study of a typical basic writing program where faculty adhered
to Eurocentric pedagogy and upheld it during exit essay assessment, African-American students
failed and repeated the course at a rate three times higher than their White counterparts (Agnew
& McLaughlin, 2001). This study tracked the academic progress of 61 basic writers who entered
their university with similar test scores and academic credentials. The researchers found that exit
essays with markers of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) or linguistic patterns that
deviated from those valued in academic settings were not likely to pass.
In contrast, Sealey-Ruiz’s (2007) role as teacher-researcher in her study of 15 female
African-American college writers demonstrated that an asset-based curriculum that includes
discussions of English language varieties, how users shape their language, and how language
shapes its users invites student writers to become participants, rather than recipients, of academic
dialogue. In this qualitative study, participants responded positively to a culturally relevant
writing curriculum, which included language validation through discussions about the relevance
of AAVE, the integration of social and academic identity, and course readings relevant to their
past experiences (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007).

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 26
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

An Andragogy of Remediation
Applying postcolonial thought to the composition classroom brings to the foreground
issues of social identity, privilege, and cultural relevance and validation. Olson (2004) notes the
“colonizing effects of the pedagogical scenario” and, through the intersection of postcolonial
theory and composition theory, asserts that students are by default constructed as “other,” with
the very people seeking to empower them becoming those who push them into the margins
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 27
(Olson, 2004). The process of attempting to empower student voices through skill-building,
developmental coursework, then, is actually counterproductive, particularly for nonnative
English speakers or for speakers of nonstandard dialects, as they are twice removed from
academic English. For minoritized students, this disconnect may raise questions about who they
are in relation to others and what space they occupy in society. In particular, race, privilege,
socioeconomic and immigration status, and generational status may serve to doubly alienate
students.
Deficit-based pedagogy, which has a primary objective of error-correction and seeks only
to offer remedies to writing deemed problematic by the institution, does not inspire learning and
devalues the funds of knowledge with which many students enter the classroom. In a series of
interviews and observations which highlighted the importance of both instructor attitudes and
course content, it became apparent that while one instructor foregrounded the ability to develop
ideas and support arguments while downplaying grammatical correctness, another basic writing
instructor included formal grammar instruction in every class meeting (Callahan & Chumney,
2009). The students whose professor prioritized higher order learning described their writing
coursework as having assisted them in their other classes as well; the other group of students
indicated that their writing coursework was reminiscent of work they did in high school and that
they did not find it helpful in the rest of their college coursework. The difference between these
opposing pedagogies comes down to conflicting philosophies about what constitutes the cultural
capital necessary to make students successful in college. While one professor believed the
ability to construct evidence-based arguments would be the most valuable to developing writers,
the other valued producing a text free of grammatical errors was more vital to students’ success
(Callahan & Chumney, 2009).
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 28
David Bartholomae (1986) famously wrote that each time a student writes for college
instructors, “he has to invent the university for the occasion.” This includes utilizing a strange
new language and trying on the “peculiar ways of knowing,” among other things, that are
characteristic of academic discourse (Bartholomae, 1986). Bartholomae (1986) explains that this
foreign discourse is one that students must appropriate—or be appropriated by—and that this
must be done as though they are members of the academy. Of course, this is inconceivable if the
student is not yet well versed in the conventions of Standard English. When a student is an
outsider to Standard English, they are twice removed from the writing conventions of academic
discourse. Writing instructors ask students to address them, as representatives of the academic
community, in the “privileged language of university discourse” (Bartholomae, 1986), or the
language of power, by mimicking the language of the academy without necessarily
understanding why and often at the expense of their own language. This entails finding one’s
voice between a personal history and the history of a discipline, while neglecting that those who
are outsiders to Standard English would not have had a place in the history of any discipline.
An andragogy that focuses on error correction and “rightness” can influence students to
identify with the dominant academic culture and to begin to perceive their own language
community or identity as “wrong” or “other” (Brammer, 2002). In his early study of basic
writers, Bartholomae (1993) wrote of his basic writing classes that they not only functioned in a
way that perpetuated “the very cultural divisions” that resulted in the students’ basic writing
placement in the first place, but that they also reinforced our desire to preserve the cultural divide
that produces basic writers. In other words, the distinction of us and them or standard and
substandard is one that educators, the institution, and society wish to maintain, perhaps as a
means of defining normal by what it is not. Bartholomae (1993) further argues that even though
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 29
basic writers might be ready to interact with the “mainstream” curriculum and writers in a
postcolonial context, the institution is not ready for these encounters with the “other.” This is
evidenced by courses that are designed to prevent this clash and meant to separate rather than
integrate with the authentic intent of facilitating contact between groups. While Bartholomae
(1993) does not argue necessarily for the elimination of basic writing, as that would harm the
students who are assisted and bettered by it, he does, however, call for reform.
In an academic context, institutional placement in a basic writing class can compound the
social marginalization of students who experience oppression in broader society. In addition to
experiencing the additional hurdles of extra no-credit coursework that their counterparts in
freshman writing do not, if they encounter a teacher who enacts a deficit-focused ideology and
andragogy, this can further emphasize feelings of academic marginalization. Considering that an
instructor’s social identity possesses implicit authority over students by virtue of being the
teacher, that identity within a classroom that a student’s social identity and, particularly, a basic
writer’s social identity typically does not, deficit-focused teacher ideology and pedagogy can
have far-reaching consequences for basic writers. Considering that postcolonial theory examines
the consequences of hegemonic ideology, an instructor who wields their “higher” social identity
over a marginalized and “colonized” student can have severe consequences on their success and
academic identity. A teacher ideology and andragogy that is deficit-based, has an emphasis on
remedying errors, and is based on a curriculum that is not culturally relevant to African-
American and Latinx basic writers may undermine their ways of knowing and meaning making.
Illustrating basic writers’ disadvantaged position in the hierarchy of higher education,
Shaughnessy (1977) wrote that these “strangers in academia” lack familiarity with the ways of
academe. Many of the students she described were first-generation, having learned other
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 30
languages or dialects of English at home, were unable to reconcile their home and school
identities, and she described the ways these incongruities of identity informed their perceptions
of themselves as students.
Students who do not place into freshman composition are already academically
marginalized, in a sense, because they find themselves outside of the collegiate academic
experience. This placement may lead them to question their academic identities and their sense
of belonging at their institutions. In fact, African-American and Latinx students are less likely to
complete a developmental course than their White and Asian counterparts (Bettinger & Long,
2005).
The Future of Basic Writing
Many alternatives to basic education are being piloted and implemented across U.S.
colleges and universities. These range from learning communities, to directed self-placement, to
stretch classes, to mainstreaming. Still, over the last few decades of research and debate, no
uniform approach has emerged as the evident next step to counter the low success rate of basic
writers. Mainstreaming underprepared writers into general college-level composition as a
response to the failure of basic writing is circular logic, unless another variable is addressed,
because basic writing was originally designed as a response to mainstreaming as a mostly
misguided attempt to simultaneously initiate and catch students up (McNenny, 2001).
As an alternative, many universities, including the California State University (CSU)
system have been engaged in making basic writing a thing of the past. A 2012 campus survey
revealed that 23 of the CSU campuses had begun to utilize either stretch writing classes or
accelerated writing programs (Fox, 2015). Additionally, nine other campuses have begun to
develop or pilot such programs (Fox, 2015). The implementation of stretch and accelerated
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 31
writing programs appears promising so far; however, it is not effective to only compare
outcomes of non-credit basic writing and these alternative courses without examining what takes
place in the classrooms of each to account for the difference in outcomes. For example, one
theory attributes the success that many stretch programs have enjoyed to extra time that students
and faculty spend together over the full academic year (Peele, 2010). To illuminate the “black
box” evaluation of basic writing that Grubb (2001) warns against, teacher ideology and attitudes,
as well as student perceptions, should be investigated. In other words, the introduction and
implementation of stretch courses is a step in the direction of eliminating the classes that
reproduce inequality, but it does not necessarily change the ideology that devised those very
classes.
While many colleges and universities are responding to the call for basic writing reform,
the question of teacher ideology still remains. The anxieties and insecurities that marginalized
students carry still accompany them into the classroom, whether they are mainstreamed, offered
a stretch course, or placed in basic writing. No matter the form that basic writing takes or how
progressive the course sequencing becomes, the objective remains the same: basic writing
attempts to use language to liberate the “academic other;” but the use of academic English for
this means is futile. Any use of language to this effect, as a means of liberation, is a mechanical
trap in which language is used to liberate a population from the alienating side effects of that
very language – unless ideology shifts.
Social Identity and Academic Writing Identity
A curriculum or andragogy that focuses solely on cognitive knowledge and disregards
social practices or the relationship between learning and social identity will have minimal
impact. Bird (2013) relies on social identity theory to understand how students learn academic
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 32
writing. Because social identity theory posits that successful integration within a community
depends on participation in, understanding of, and self-identification with that particular
community, teaching from this perspective necessitates explaining not only the “how”s of
academic writing conventions but also the “why”s. This macro understanding of writing, in
contrast to a micro-focused pedagogy that aims to perfect textual features like students’ thesis
statements or topic sentences, validates each student’s personhood and invites participation in the
academic community and discourse. It establishes an understanding that membership in the
academic community is available to student writers, which is of particular importance in a basic
writing class where the perception is typically that students must be separated and must undergo
a ritual initiation process to prepare them before they can enter the academic community.
Bird (2013) writes that if we teach students ways to integrate their social identity or
identity memberships with their academic community identification, they will be better equipped
to develop their academic writer identity. Doing this successfully is not just a matter of teaching
critical thinking and consciously avoiding a curriculum based on rote memorization. It depends
on acknowledging ways of thinking that are already familiar to students and using those ways to
bridge new ways of thinking. Based on her own comparative analysis, Bird (2013) proposes
focusing on three aspects of writer identity: autobiographical writer identity, discoursal writer
identity, and authorial writer identity. The autobiographical component is the presence of the
writer’s own voice or personal history in the text; this includes students’ interpretations of
concepts and their personal ideas in response to scholarly conversations. The discoursal
component is explained as the conventions of academic writing and their adherence to and
mastery of characteristics of the discipline. The authorial denotes the author’s authority as a
writer and a contributor to academic conversations (Bird, 2013). This is different from
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 33
autobiographical in that it involves students putting forth ideas they have intellectually grappled
with, rather than their own lived experience.
In her comparative analysis of 47 student papers, Bird (2013) examined the efficacy of
writing- and identity-focused basic writing courses on writing identity development. The study
involved collecting and coding 47 basic and freshman writers’ papers to track shifts in their
writer identities. In her findings, Bird (2013) found increases in authorial and autobiographical
components among basic writers’ writing as compared with the writing of a group of freshman
composition writers. This was demonstrated by a higher percentage of words used to develop
their own ideas (autobiographical), as well as a higher percentage of words used to put forth their
ideas as contributions to academic discourse (authorial) in comparison to freshman writers.
Though Bird (2013) acknowledges that students need not have an understanding that is
this thorough of academic writing and composition theory to do well and that more reductive
approaches and habits carried over from high school will likely also assist them in producing
successful college papers, thoughtfully crafting an academic writer identity that also integrates
with their personal identity is key for long-term success as academic writers. This is all
indicative of the complexity of the process of academic writing development. It is not, as many
a basic writing curriculum may suggest, contingent upon learning the mechanics and formulas of
good writing. It is closely linked with identity development, and instructors have a critical role
in supporting this process.
However, assimilation into a new language community is not without cost. For
minoritzed students, there is a question of whether developing their academic identity ultimately
means submitting to the opposition and shedding their social identity of their home community
(Ogbu, 1991). Based on an ethnographic study, Ogbu (1974) noted the phenomenon of African-
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 34
American students viewing participation in their language community as a representation of
identity, and, similarly, they viewed the participation in academic culture and the usage of
Standard English as a symbol of white culture or “acting white.” Rejecting the theory of
academic achievement based solely on social class, Ogbu (1991) cited evidence which
demonstrates that black American students perform less well than white students of the same
socioeconomic backgrounds. This evidence also foregrounds the issues of why some minorities
overcome cultural conflicts while others do not. To begin to answer this question, he compares
the experiences of voluntary minority groups, or immigrant minorities who have willingly
emigrated from their countries in search of better opportunities, to involuntary minority groups
who have become members of American society through “slavery, conquest, and colonization”
(Ogbu, 1991).
In his study of Black and Mexican-American students, both involuntary minority groups,
he uncovered their perceptions that greater academic effort was put forth by their white peers
because of an understanding that their white counterparts would have better and more abundant
opportunities awaiting them upon completing their education (Ogbu, 1974). This belief that the
academic system is built by and designed for a demographic of which they are not a part can fuel
the skepticism of minoritzed students about how far schooling will actually get them in a society
that is still racist and oppressive. Consequently, the “skills” approach, which aims to teach
incoming students the language of the academy, serves as a harsh reminder that they do not have
the right words to participate in academic discourse. It is a reminder of the exclusivity of the
academic language community, that their words are not welcome, that academic discourse does
not belong to them, and that they do not have a place in the academy (Fox, 1990).
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 35
Asking students to write the literacy narrative, which is a text that focuses on literacy and
language acquisition, increases students’ personal agency through the discovery that their story is
both worthwhile and occupies a place in academic discourse (Soliday, 1994). When instructors
encourage their students to assimilate to academic writing conventions, for basic writers in
particular, who are often low-income or racial minorities, there is a missed opportunity to discuss
the difference that exists in the distance between their home dialects and the language of the
academy (Soliday, 1994). This conflict of language, or “tension between discourse worlds”
(Soliday, 1994), that many basic writers experience is often relegated to a set of errors that needs
to be corrected but could instead be interrogated and elevated to a topic worthy of discussion.
Discourse Community Membership and Restoring Agency
As an attempt to offer a definition for the term, Bizzell (1992) tentatively defines
“discourse community” as “a group of people who share certain language-using practices and
ways of interpreting experience.” In any given discourse community, the agreed upon stylistic
conventions standardize both how people interact with each other in this community and how the
community members interact with outsiders (Bizzell, 1992).
Many assume that research in the field of discourse communities aims to define each
discourse community with an established description, so that instructors could teach these
conventions to students easily (Ivanič, 1998). This problematically suggests that a discourse
community must initiate learners with a set of established conventions in order to earn
membership (Ivanič, 1998). However, Ivanič (1998) writes that conventions are not fixed and
unchanging and that it cannot be assumed that teaching discourse conventions to learners
automatically grants them membership.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 36
Members of all discourse communities are engaged in “complex interpersonal
relationships” (Ivanič, 1998). Furthermore, they are regularly negotiating and renegotiating
affiliations with other communities, which complicates their membership, and, thus, learners also
bring with them these richly nuanced identities from their social lives outside of the academy
(Ivanič, 1998). For students who carry labels like “remedial” or “basic writer,” their lack of
familiarity with academic discourse is often mistaken for cognitive deficiency (Ivanič, 1998).
While Bartholomae (1986) does not explicitly name social identity theory in his foundational
essay “Inventing the University,” he posits that the sometimes strange and idiosyncratic
discourse community expectations should be made explicit and visible to students so that they
can negotiate how to integrate them with their identities. Instead, basic writers are often both
shielded and excluded from this discourse. A failure of our colleges and universities,
Bartholomae (1986) notes, is that they have neglected to allow basic writers entry into scholarly
ventures and instead limit their work to modes of learning which place them outside of the
academic community. Though remedial writing occupies a subordinate position in higher
education, institutions, instructors, and andragogy determine the degree of disadvantage basic
writers experience by regulating access to the cultural capital that is necessary for students to
succeed in higher education (Callahan and Chumney, 2009).
While there are some changes being made to basic writing, both in terms of course
sequencing and curriculum, students are largely left to make “approximations of academic
discourse” (Bartholomae, 1986) as they write from outside of this discourse
community. Sommers and Saltz (2004) state that asking students to invent their own topic or
argument is not as simple as many instructors imagine because students must first “construct
themselves as authorities” when they are actually novices to a field and to the academy in
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 37
general. Their findings suggest that, in order to do this, students must be able to assume an
attitude of readiness to learn and experiment with guidance and feedback (Sommers & Saltz,
2004). This membership is one they may take up reluctantly, while others may avoid it because
they have been told that they cannot do it well or convincingly. Bartholomae (1986) writes that
in order to write, writers must see themselves as “insiders” of a discourse and among the
privileged and “being granted a special right to speak.”
However, even an explicit invitation to join the conversation will look different for
students of minoritized backgrounds for whom writing criticism may become a marginalizing
experience. Because of factors such as prior academic preparation and socioeconomic status,
high-risk students may be more likely to experience self-doubt regarding their participation in
higher education (Pizzolato, 2004). In one study, of the three variables that determined whether
students were likely to seek feedback, one of them related to instructor feedback; if students
expected a critical or shaming response, they were not likely to seek help (Piorkowski &
Scheurer, 2000). Yet another variable in Piorkowski and Scheurer’s (2000) study related to the
role of teacher affect in composition instruction. Students’ perceptions of a caring teacher were
more likely to result in students asking for help. In their interviews, one student described that
the way teachers talk to their students demonstrates their willingness to help and be accessible to
students (Piorkowski & Scheurer, 2000). Another student stressed the value of constructive
feedback as opposed to criticism; though he expressed that he lacked agency as a writer in high
school, a combination of supportive feedback and assignments which required him to author his
own viewpoint resulted in feelings of empowerment and accountability (Piorkowski & Scheurer,
2000). These responses stressed the importance of supporting developing authority in basic
writers instead of dismissing ideas and correcting errors.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 38
In a study focusing on male students of color and their persistence in community college
basic writing classes, Villarreal and Garcia (2016) interviewed Latinx and African-American
males to determine to what extent agency and self-determination played a role in their success in
their writing classes. Their findings echoed the assertion that high-risk students need to have
strong determination to persist in the face of negative experiences which can lead them to
question their participation in higher education (Villarreal & Garcia, 2016). Moreover, the
findings indicated that in addition to demonstrating common motives for persisting, Latinx and
African-American males similarly felt compelled to drop out of their English composition
classes when met with experiences that challenged their autonomy and competence, as these
experiences significantly eroded their self-determination (Villarreal & Garcia, 2016).
Cultural Relevance
Reading and writing are inextricably linked, and strong writers are often engaged and
invested readers; however, there is a disconnect for student writers when the reality and language
of their home community is at odds with the language of the academy. Composition pedagogy
that is culturally relevant has the power to bridge the gap between students’ lived experience and
texts that promote social and political examination (Johnson & Eubanks, 2015). This kind of
andragogy focuses on student voice and experience, rather than prescriptive writing conventions,
and works to integrate minoritized students into the writing community (Johnson & Eubanks,
2015). In fact, beyond just establishing a connection to the writing community, Johnson and
Eubanks (2015) state that for students to have a true understanding of their community and
society, culturally relevant writing instruction is the means of connecting marginalized and
minoritized student populations to the rest of their world.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 39
Another effective strategy for encouraging the persistence of minoritized students in
developmental classes is implementing a more relatable curriculum or focusing on texts that
present multicultural or multiethnic perspectives as reading materials. These texts might also
represent different ways of speaking, different socioeconomic perspectives, and may draw from
funds of knowledge outside of the dominant ones. Therefore, providing texts that are relevant
and engaging to students, texts that legitimize their own identities and reflect their own realities
that are being negotiated is crucial to their success.
An attempt at simultaneous mainstreaming and curriculum redesign evidenced that “at-
risk” students can excel in a composition course with writing instruction derived from relatable
content that encourages an examination of their own identity development (Winslow & Mische,
2001). In their conclusions, Winslow and Mische (2001) pointed out that in order for this kind
of mainstreamed course to work, instructors must meet and plan frequently, students’ prior
knowledge must be validated and built upon, and assignments must allow students to find their
voices and tell their stories.
In Dunning’s (2009) study of six African-American students who successfully completed
a developmental English class, the students reported that, in addition to requiring a meaningful
connection with the professor, relatable writing prompts and a personally relevant curriculum
assisted them in succeeding. In yet another study, community college basic writers demonstrated
preferences for essays that dealt with issues close to them and within their realm of experience
(Pan, 2012). They engaged more with writing that addressed marital relationships, domestic
abuse, and immigrant experiences (Pan, 2012). Texts that explore familiar concepts and
occurrences encourage engagement and facilitate comprehension (Pan, 2012). In addition, the
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 40
elevated position such texts occupy as assigned reading demonstrates respect and recognized
value of these perspectives, cultural capital, and contributions.
In another study, a culturally relevant curriculum was used to bridge the autobiographical
and authorial and to validate and normalize the knowledge and experiences with which the
participating African-American women entered the writing classroom (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007) This
curriculum bridged what they know to what they need to learn, with one of the research
questions focusing on how African-American women respond to curricula that “centered on their
cultural ways of knowing” (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007). In her findings, Sealey-Ruiz (2007) noted that
the culturally relevant curriculum engendered an understanding of the connection between their
personal experiences and the rest of the world. Similarly, in working to combat feelings of self-
doubt, Sealey-Ruiz (2007) noted a second most frequently occurring theme related to “fostering
a positive self-identity.” In her classroom, reflecting on, comprehending, and processing their
lived experiences as a way of making meaning was restored, thereby restoring agency to an
extent. Particularly in a course where participants’ writing and speaking voices are crucial to
success, the implementation of a culturally relevant curriculum has demonstrated positive results
for student success.
Language Validation
Language and literacy are inherently connected to identity. Basic writers often have their
work evaluated by graders who interpret their work as inferior for not conforming to a
Eurocentric writing style. Being evaluated as linguistically inferior can result in or heighten
existing feelings of social inferiority. In Agnew and McLaughlin’s (2001) five-year study of 61
basic writers with similar academic credentials and test scores, a racial discrepancy became
evident when examining outcomes data. Of the 24 students who were required to repeat the
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 41
basic writing course, 25% were White and 75% were African-American. While Agnew and
McLaughlin (2001) acknowledge other causes that contribute to this discrepancy, such as
socioeconomic factors, cultural identity, academic preparedness, and both Eurocentric faculty
and curricula, their research highlights another possible cause: the evaluation method of some
composition instructors inhibits the progress and success of writers whose home language is
African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). In fact, students whose writing contained
linguistic forms from AAVE were unlikely to pass their exit essays (Agnew & McLaughlin,
2001). These students effectively have their speech and language used against them to push
them to the margins of academia.
Pan (2012) notes a clash that takes place between the home languages or home dialects of
many developmental writers and the language of the academy that is enforced in developmental
writing classes. Moreover, Brammer (2002) has stated that often developmental writers do not
possess the linguistic cultural capital that is accepted and respected within higher education, and
these writers are therefore perceived as academic outsiders. They instead possess and use codes
for social groups that are not in a position of power, and this hinders their acceptance as
members of the academy (Brammer, 2002). In regards to writing in particular, their lack of
awareness of the appropriate codes hampers their attempts to communicate through writing
(Brammer, 2002).
In fact, among the three major themes that emerged in Sealey-Ruiz’s (2007) study
focusing on African-American adult women and a culturally relevant curriculum, the most
recurring one was language validation. Discussions about Standard English language
acquisition, the rich history of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), and the
academy’s general rejection of Black English sparked discussions on the two languages’ relative
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 42
validity and respective uses (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007). Furthermore, by gaining a deeper
understanding of AAVE, the students in this study were able to apply those language skills to
improving their usage of SE (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007). Rather than having their spoken and written
language corrected and marked as errors, it was situated within the context of their world and
used to gain a better understanding of formal academic English through discussions about what it
means to speak the language of power (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007).
Conclusion
Chapter Two examined the current state of basic writing, as well as other programmatic
forms that basic writing is beginning to take. Additionally, the chapter demonstrated the effects
of a deficit-based curriculum, teacher ideology and culturally relevant andragogy on basic
writers through theory and empirical evidence. Furthermore, social identity theory and
postcolonial theory will be used as a lens for analysis of the interactions between basic writers
and their instructors and basic writing curriculum.
Chapter Three will outline the process of understanding African-American and Latinx
basic writers’ perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies on their success in their
writing course and their writing identity development; the following chapter will also address the
institution, population, and instrumentation of the study.

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 43
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
The purpose of this study was to examine African-American and Latinx basic writers’
perceptions of how their instructors’ andragogy impacts their success in their writing course and
development as writers. Participants’ perspectives were collected and analyzed to determine
whether and to what extent there is a perceived impact. This chapter outlines the qualitative
methods that were utilized in this study. A qualitative design was chosen for this study because
of its focus on how people make meaning of and interpret their experiences and, subsequently,
how those experiences and interpretations shape their worlds. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Furthermore, this chapter will highlight the research questions, the research design, the site
selection, the population and sample, the instrumentation, the data collection process, the method
of analysis, and the role of the researcher.
Research Questions
The questions guiding this study were designed to foreground students’ experiences and
perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies, rather than instructors’ descriptions of
their andragogical strategies and their perceived influence. In order to examine African-
American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of whether and how their instructors’
andragogical strategies influence their success and writing identity development, the following
research questions guided this study:
1. What are African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the
andragogical strategies used in their writing course?
2. How do African-American and Latinx basic writers perceive these andragogical
strategies influencing their success and writing identity development?

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 44
Research Design and Methods
According to Maxwell (2013), qualitative methods are best suited for understanding the
meaning of participants’ experiences and perspectives. Because the research questions hinge
entirely on basic writers’ perceptions of andragogical strategies and their influence on students’
success and writing identity development, gathering participant perspectives is essential.
One-on-one semi-structured interviews conducted with African-American and Latinx
community college basic writers were the most appropriate qualitative method because they
support and align with the posed research questions. The focus of the study is neither the basic
writing curriculum and andragogy; rather, because the focus is on how the andragogical
strategies used in basic writing courses are interpreted by the students who experience the
curriculum and andragogy, interviews with students are a necessity. Additionally, because this
study aimed to better understand how participants’ perceptions of their writing curriculum and
perceptions of andragogy influence their success as developing writers, interviews were
necessary to discern unobservable behavior (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Site and Population Selection
This study was designed to gain insight into African-American and Latinx basic writers’
perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies on their success in their writing class and
their writing identity development. African-American and Latinx basic writers were chosen
because basic skills classes present a challenge for many African-American and Latinx students
in higher education. Evidence indicates that, overall, African-American and Latinx students are
both overrepresented in developmental classes and also demonstrate a lower success rate (Zhang,
2000). Gaining insight into whether and to what extent there is an influence is relevant to
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 45
understanding how best to support African-American and Latinx basic writers in becoming
proficient in academic writing.
School Site Criteria
Highland Community College (HCC), a public, two-year community college that offers
basic writing courses, was selected as the school site. This community college is located in
Southern California, and it enrolls a diverse population of students. Because the study
participants must identify as African-American or Latinx, it was essential to select an institution
that enrolls a large population of students of these racial and ethnic backgrounds. Highland
Community College is this institution’s assigned pseudonym.
HCC is a community college that is recognized for its high transfer rate, and it is a
HSI. Its mission includes language about supporting student success for members of the diverse
communities it serves. According to the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES), HCC
has just over 27,000 enrolled students. Of the student population, 51% are Latinx, 23% are
Asian, 15% are White, 4% are International, 4% are Black or African-American, and 3% are
Multiethnic (NCES). HCC is at the forefront of two-year institutions in Southern California that
are piloting stretch composition programs.
I completed this study at a HSI because research indicates that not only do students of
minoritized backgrounds enroll in basic writing at rates disproportionate to their enrollment, but
that basic writing pass rates are lower at minority serving institutions (Zhang, 2000). I selected
this institution for its diverse student populations. HCC’s demographic information for students
enrolled in any basic writing course is presented in Table 1.

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 46
Table 1
Highland Community College’s Basic Writer Demographic Information
Number of Basic
Writers
% of Basic
Writers that are
African-
American
% of Basic
Writers that are
Latinx
Number of
African-
American
Participants in
this Study
Number of Latinx
Participants in this
Study
2,147 3% 67% 2 6

Participant Criteria
The study participants were selected using purposeful sampling in order to gain insight
from those whose experiences were the most relevant to this study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The population for this study was limited to African-American and Latinx basic writers
who were enrolled in any basic writing course at HCC. It did not include students who self-
placed in a stretch composition course at HCC. Students who self-place in stretch composition
may not experience the same feelings of marginalization due to the autonomy of self-placement,
and this introduces another variable that will shape their experience. Furthermore, because
stretch composition is either still being piloted at many institutions or has yet to be piloted, there
is far less research on this topic thus far. The study participants also included students whose
first language is not English. However, it did not include English Language Learners (ELLs)
who are in English Language Learning classes.
The sample included eight basic writing students who identified as African-American or
Latinx as participants. Data was reviewed until saturation was reached. Saturation is the term to
describe when the data yield no additional new information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), Patton
(2015) recommends selecting a minimum number that will allow a researcher to reasonably
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 47
understand the phenomenon (Patton, 2015). With that consideration, this number struck a
balance between reaching a point of saturation in gathering valuable qualitative data while also
working within a reasonable timeframe to capture a glimpse of the phenomenon.
Data Collection
As the researcher, I served as the primary instrument for interview data collection. After
receiving approval for the study through the institutions’ Institutional Review Board (IRB), to
initiate the sampling process, I contacted composition faculty at HCC via email. The email
included a brief note explaining the study to faculty, as well as a request to share the email with
students. This preceded the main text of the email, which was directed to a student
audience. This recruitment email detailed the purpose of the research, the criteria, and the time
commitment for participating students. Faculty were asked to share this with their students, who
were then able to opt to reach out to me to participate in the study. To ensure purposeful
sampling, I sent interested students a link to a pre-survey, which assisted with criteria-based
selection to make certain that all participants fit the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also used
snowball sampling to ask participants for recommendations of other basic writers who fit the
criteria for the study and who may have wished to participate.
Once the participants were selected, in-person, semi-structured interviews followed to
allow me to better understand African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perspectives. A semi-
structured format afforded the possibility of a structure that collects specific data from all
participants, while also allowing for exploration, individual interpretation, and emerging
worldview from each respondent (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This format was important for this
study because basic writers’ perspectives are understudied, and a semi-structured format ensured
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 48
that participants had the opportunity to divert the interview in directions that they found
important and meaningful.
I used an interview guide with somewhat structured questions, and I used probes and
follow-up questions to clarify, to encourage greater depth in responses, and to better understand
how African-American and Latinx basic writers perceive the influence of andragogical strategies
on their success in their writing course and their writing identitydevelopment.
I allowed for opportunities for respondents to teach me what they thought is relevant
information. A semi-structured format allowed me to have a guide to keep the interview on track
and to keep participants focused on pertinent topics, while allowing them to volunteer additional
information that might not fit into the interview guide I prepared.
I met with all respondents for one 60-minute interview at a neutral, informal location at
their campus in order to make the meeting convenient and comfortable for them. Prior to the
start of each interview, I reviewed the information sheet together with each participant and
answered any questions they had. I gave the respondents the opportunity to consider the
information and then consent, if they chose to. The consenting participants were given a copy of
the form. Furthermore, I explained what they could expect from the process and how their
identities and information would be kept confidential with the use of pseudonyms that they
chose. To accurately capture interview data, all of the interviews were recorded with the consent
of the participants. The audio recordings were stored on a password-protected laptop.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process began with the transcription of the digitally recorded interview
responses. Rather than using a third-party transcription service, I transcribed my own interviews
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 49
as a means of immersing myself in generating ideas about the data. The transcribed interview
responses and the coded data were stored on a password-protected laptop and a flash drive.
I did an initial read of all transcripts, broadly noting overarching themes in the margins
(Creswell, 2009). In order to tie the data to the study’s conceptual framework, I then developed
an open coding system (Creswell, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Afterwards, I used axial
coding, during which I grouped the codes according to recurring themes (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). In the final phase, I used selective coding to identify core themes (Corbin & Strauss,
1990). Finally, these categories were interpreted according to the conceptual framework.
During the coding process, I adhered to the constructs of my conceptual framework as a means
of structuring my analysis.
Validity
Because validity will support the trustworthiness and credibility of my findings, ensuring
this is of utmost importance. Member checking is one strategy to ensure validity (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I established trustworthiness through member checks after completing analysis of
the collected data. I requested feedback from the participants and offered participants the
opportunity to review the initial findings to ensure that the findings were an accurate
representation of their perception (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Role of Researcher
A factor that greatly influenced my role as researcher is my previous work and extensive
engagement with student writers. I have worked as a composition lecturer at many community
colleges, as a writing consultant in several university and college writing centers, and as an
Assistant Director and Interim Director at one university writing center. Furthermore, I have
undergone extensive training as an instructor of composition in a competitive graduate Teaching
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 50
Associate program, I have seen stretch composition implemented at two institutions where I have
taught, and I have participated in trainings for stretch composition instruction.
While I had not met or previously interacted with the any of the participants in this study,
I have taught at Highland Community College in the past as an adjunct lecturer of both college-
level composition and basic writing. Most of the faculty members I have interacted with in the
past are no longer working there, but a few still remain. I have developed strong professional
relationships with several of the composition faculty members. These professional relationships
were an asset during the process of participant recruitment, and several former colleagues who
valued the topic of the study encouraged students to consider participating. Another impact on
this study was that my worldview and philosophy was informed by my own experiences of
language acquisition and writing identity development as a multilingual writer. While I was
never placed in a basic writing class, I have worked with many basic writers as an instructor and
am sympathetic to the unique challenges they face.
Researcher’s Positionality
As a researcher, my methodological approach and epistemological assumptions are
informed by postcolonial theory and social identity theory. The field of Postcolonial Studies
rejects an essentialist view of identity and enacts a pluralist and anti-hegemonic outlook
(Buchanan, 2010). This outlook allows for the examination of the relationships between the
colonizer and decolonized, the consequences of hegemonic ideology, and it privileges the
perspective of the decolonized. This is an appropriate perspective to adopt for studying African-
American and Latinx basic writers because people of these racial and ethnic backgrounds
frequently experience social oppression.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 51
Using social identity theory to establish that identity traits are used to make judgements
and to categorize based on differences, we can assign relative weight to different actors in the
basic writing pedagogical context. Social identities, which comprise ethnicity, race, and gender,
among other things, are used socially to make judgements based on identities (Evans, Forney,
Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Intertwined with and at the foundation of social identities is an
understanding of privilege and oppression (Evans et al., 2010). Some social identities, such as
White or European, are privileged and possess more social power and authority, whereas other
social identities, such as African-American, immigrant, or Latinx, to name a few, experience
oppression.
Conclusion
This chapter detailed the research design, methods, population and sample size that were
used for this qualitative study. This study is reliant on qualitative methods, specifically
interviews, in order to better understand the perspectives of African-American and Latinx basic
writers. Recruiting participants from a HSI like Highland Community College, with its
commitment to serving a diverse student population, and utilizing one-on-one semi-structured
interviews with open-ended questions as a means of data collection ensured the collection of rich
narratives from participants. In Chapter Four, the data collected from the interviews in this study
will be presented. The following chapter will also identify the themes that emerged from the
data.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 52
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND THEMES
This chapter presents data collected during interviews with students who were placed in
either of the two levels of basic writing composition at Highland Community College. A brief
profile of each student participant in this study is also included. The findings are presented
through the description of four emergent themes: (1) constructive feedback and supportive
andragogy, (2) negative feedback and authoritative andragogy, (3) inclusion in academic
discourse and community, and (4) relatable course content. The research questions which guided
this study are:
1. What are African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the
andragogical strategies used in their writing class?
2. How do African-American and Latinx basic writers perceive these andragogical
strategies influencing their success and writing identity development?
This study sought to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of African-American
and Latinx basic writers in one public two-year college. The purpose of this study is to examine
African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the influence of andragogical
strategies on their success in their writing course and their writing identity development. This
study examines the data through the lenses of postcolonial theory and social identity theory.
Scholarship utilizing a postcolonial outlook allows for the examination of the perspective of the
decolonized, the relationships between the colonizer and decolonized, as well as the
consequences of hegemonic ideology. Social identities, which comprise ethnicity, race, and
gender, among other things, are used socially to make judgements based on identities (Evans,
Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). An understanding of social identities in the context of a
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 53
basic writing class is necessary in order to understand and investigate the power structure of the
classroom and allows us to use the lens of Postcolonial Studies in examining the data.
Overview of Participants
Eight students at Highland Community College participated in this study. The interview
participants all identified as either African-American or Latinx and were also enrolled in basic
writing. The participants were enrolled in either of the two levels of basic writing (English 2 or
English 1). English 2 and English 1 are sequential courses, and students must pass English 2
with a C or better before continuing on to English 1. After passing both courses, students may
enroll in Freshman Composition for credit toward an AA or college transfer credit.
Alternatively, some students test directly into English 1. Occasionally, students who do
exceptionally well in English 2 may bypass English 1 and enroll into Freshman Composition
after successfully completing English 2, though this is infrequent. Participants were asked to
select a pseudonym for themselves for the purpose of confidentiality. In addition to more
detailed profiles of each participant, a brief description of each participant is available in Table 2.
Table 2
Demographics of Interview Participants
Name Age Cultural
Identity
Native
language
English
level
Number of basic writing
attempts
Garrett 21 Black English English 2 First attempt
Mariana 22 Chicana Spanish English 2 First attempt
Kristina 18 Hispanic Spanish English 2 First attempt
Karmen 24 Hispanic Spanish English 1 First attempt; two previous
attempts at English 2
Julieta 20 Mexican-
American
Spanish English 2 Second attempt
Hector 26 Mexican Spanish English 1 First attempt
Kaleb 21 Mexican Spanish English 1 First attempt
Xavier 20 Black English English 2 Second attempt

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 54
Participant Profiles
Garrett, 21, identified himself as a Black student whose native language is English. He
described himself as a quiet student who follows the rules of the classroom and mostly keeps to
himself. He successfully completed the cosmetology program at Highland Community College
and currently works at a hair salon as a hairstylist. His hope is to complete his AA so that he can
teach classes at the salon where he is currently employed. He expressed writing anxiety and
indicated that he does not see himself as a good writer or reader. When asked about his level of
interest in writing, he responded that “it’s in the negatives” because he has not had the patience
for it, but that he is interested in improving. He is making his first attempt at English 2.
Mariana, 22, identified herself as a Chicana whose first language is Spanish. She
described her academic identity in positive terms, stating that she thinks she is smart and can
understand and learn most things that she is taught. She has been out of school and is a returning
student. She described her level of interest in writing as low, but emphasized that she is
determined to improve her skills because she does not want to be “at the bottom academically.”
She is making her first attempt at English 2.
Kristina, 18, described her background as Hispanic and stated that her first language is
Spanish. She stated that she is shy and nervous when it comes to her writing class, but she tries
to push herself to be comfortable. She is currently making her first attempt at English 2. She
also indicated that she struggles especially in her writing class because English is her second
language and it was difficult to get into the habit of reading and writing in English. She
expressed great enthusiasm for participating in this study because she hopes to eventually
graduate from a four-year university and be granted admission into a Ph.D. program in
psychology. She hopes to improve her research and writing skills in order to realize this goal.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 55
Karmen, 24, identified as Hispanic, and her first language is Spanish. She stated that she
identifies as Hispanic broadly because she experiences anxiety when identifying as Salvadoran
specifically. She expressed concerns about people believing that where she comes from is a “bad
place and there are a lot of criminals.” She also lamented the fact that she does not see
Salvadorans in her community in what she called “top jobs” and observed their
underrepresentation on that front. When prompted to divulge her level of interest in writing, she
recalled that she wanted to be an author when she was a child and that she used to love reading.
However, in high school, it became less important to her because academic interests were not
perceived as “cool.” She is making her first attempt at English 1, but she stated that she had to
make two attempts at English 2.
Julieta, 20, identified as Mexican-American, and indicated that her first language is
Spanish. She was quick to point out that she recently returned to Highland Community College
after a two-year hiatus, which was prompted by her failing her first attempt at English 2. Julieta
brought a unique perspective to this study because her current English 2 experience is in stark
contrast to her initial unsuccessful attempt, and she often compared the two in her interview
responses. When asked if her level of interest in writing has transformed in any way since her
first attempt, she clarified that she was not able to pass due to her first instructor’s teaching
methods, which felt oppressive and punitive to her. She juxtaposed that with her current
instructor, who gave her the opportunity to skip English 1 after completing English 2 and
continue directly on to college-level composition through administrative intervention. Her
experience in her first English 2 class compounded the anxiety she regularly experiences as a
result of being a first-generation college student. She stated, “I struggled a lot. In my family,
I’m the first generation to go to college, and my parents speak Spanish. I’m not the person that
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 56
could go home and be like, ‘Oh, what does this mean’ to my parents. So, it’s kind of like you had
to do it on your own.”
Hector, 26, described his background as Mexican, and his first language is Spanish. He
placed directly into English 1, and this is his first attempt. He is a first-generation college
student; he further illustrated his family’s relationship to higher education by adding, “In my
family, college is not really a big thing. Only a couple of my cousins have actually gone to
school and gotten degrees. Most of the them are already working by 15 or 16. So that’s part of
my identity.” Asked about his level of interest in writing, he stated that he only likes it if the
topic is meaningful or something that he likes. Otherwise, he experiences difficulties with the
subject.
Kaleb, 21, identified as Mexican and indicated that his first language is Spanish. He
stated that he has been a high achieving student but has struggled in English classes because he
acquired the language later in life. He is a third-year student at Highland Community College
and has finished all of the other transfer requirements. He tested into English 1, but, due to his
severe anxiety and apprehension regarding the subject, he delayed taking this course until the
end, which is an unusual academic plan. While his academic interest is sociology, he stated that
he hopes to become a sociology professor and, therefore, sees the need to develop strong written
communication skills along the way.
Xavier, 20, identified as Black, and he is a native English speaker. He described himself
as anxious about being back in school, and specifically about taking a writing course, but he also
stated that he does all of his homework and tries to do well in his courses. This is his first
attempt at English 2, and he admitted that although writing does not interest him particularly, he
recognizes the value of improving his writing skills.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 57
Emergent Themes
The findings from the analyzed participant interview data are presented in the following
paragraphs. The following themes emerged from participant responses: (1) constructive
feedback and supportive andragogy, (2) negative feedback and authoritative andragogy, (3)
inclusion in academic discourse and community, and (4) relatable course content.
Constructive Feedback and Supportive Andragogy
The theme of constructive feedback and supportive andragogy emerged quite
prominently from the data. Every participant expressed, to some degree, the importance of
constructive feedback and supportive andragogy in their writing class. Their definitions of
constructive feedback and supportive andragogy varied slightly, but there were many
overlapping characteristics, including having an instructor who exhibits an understanding and
caring nature, one who makes an effort to normalize errors as a part of the learning process, and
also encourages reflective learning.
Normalizing Errors. As an alternative to excessive error correction, participants
described different teaching strategies in which their errors were first normalized as a regular
process in learning, and then addressed and remedied by the students themselves, rather than an
authority figure. In general, they remarked that seeing the errors that others made engendered
more of a feeling of communal learning and reduced feelings of isolation and anxiety. The five
participants all expressed that their instructors utilize peer review during the revision stage of
their essay writing process. Garrett stated his preference for peer review:
I like peer review just so I can see what other people did. It's good to read someone else's paper
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 58
sometimes because it can help you improve when you see how other people are sounding.
Or sometimes you read it and you're like, “That person sounds worse than me.” So, you
don't feel as bad anymore.
This method of revision also builds in an opportunity for students to engage with each other’s
work, to recognize errors in another’s produced text, and to acknowledge that the revision of a
weak argument or editing of errors is a part of the learning process. This speaks to an asset-
based ideology, as it focuses on what students bring to the classroom, and not what they are
lacking, and it works to empower students to reflect on what they are learning. Julieta offered
another teaching approach which she appreciated for its effect of normalizing errors:
[My current teacher] takes random sentences out of everyone’s writing and puts it on the
board. And we all fix each other’s sentences, and that’s really helpful because you see
your own writing up there, and you see mistakes that other students made, so it’s like,
“I’m not the only one making mistakes.”
Kaleb described instances where his instructor even modeled positive behavior when confronted
with knowledge he himself has not yet acquired, thereby normalizing even the classroom
authority figure’s mistakes. He recalled instances where the class came across a word in their
text with which no one, including the instructor, was familiar. In these situations, his instructor
asked the class try to define the word together using context clues and other strategies.
Witnessing his instructor demonstrating inquisitiveness, rather than feelings of shame or
inferiority when presented with unfamiliar things, has had a positive effect on Kaleb as he makes
his way through his writing course. He stated:
I see him as very educated, and on the first day he introduced himself as someone who struggled
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 59
a lot in English but also that he came out of that and became a professor. It's very
encouraging.
Reflective Learning. In contrast to feedback that is focused on corrections, participants
emphasized the importance of instructor feedback that encourages reflective learning. Regarding
comments on his essays, Xavier stated, “I like it when teachers give you hints but don't really tell
you what to do.” Mariana favored feedback in the form of questions especially:
She'll ask me, “Why is this example of code switching important?” I guess she
wants to hear more about that. She asks a lot of questions. Even though it's a comment
on my paper, at the end of the day, it makes me feel good because I got to work my brain,
you know? It was a challenge. I had to think about what I did.
Mariana appreciated the opportunity for reflective learning, as it is indicative of her instructor’s
asset-based ideology. An invitation to answer a question implies that Mariana has a valid
answer, as opposed to andragogical strategies under a deficit-based ideology, which would
involve an instructor giving answers to students that they believe do not have answers.
Julieta, with the benefit of her two contrasting experiences, expressed how differing
styles of instructor feedback affect her development as a writer differently:
I think this current teacher is really good at motivating us. The previous one could
have given us more feedback. If you see what’s wrong, and you know why, you can do it
different next time, instead of her just crossing it out. Comments help so much. Not
just, “It’s wrong, it’s wrong, it’s wrong.” Tell me why it’s wrong, tell me how I could fix
it, tell me how I could better myself. It’s necessary for students to be more successful in
the class. When prompted to consider what valuable feedback might look like in concrete terms,
she offered:
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 60
She sits with me and keeps reasoning with me. She asks me questions, like, “Why do you think
that?” “What else can you add?” Even when she’s not there, I think about the
questions she would be asking me. Like when I’m working on a paper at home, I think of
the questions she would ask me, and I ask myself what I can add or what I can make
stronger. Having her always asking questions in a supportive way taught me to do that to
myself. [Julieta]
Kaleb also remarked that he found his instructor’s feedback style both encouraging and
empowering. He expressed a preference for his instructor’s style, which offers support from the
sidelines, rather than forcing corrections and reducing students’ feelings of authorship over their
own texts:
He says, “I would recommend” a lot. I like “I would recommend” because he's not saying my
perspective is wrong – he's just offering another perspective for me to also look at. I
prefer “recommend” to “should.” “You should” is force. “I recommend” is not
necessarily telling me to change anything. It's very powerful to know that the decision is mine at
the end.
Caring Instructor. Of the eight participants, six felt that their instructor’s positive
beliefs and attitudes toward them were evidenced through their high degree of demonstrated
caring. They explained that the awareness that their instructor was invested in their writing
development was an encouraging factor that motivated them. Kristina said of her instructor:
She really enjoys the class, and she looks like she wants to be there, so that makes us feel more
included. She even says she’ll stay an extra hour if we have questions. I feel very
comfortable when she says that kind of stuff. She tells us to take our time and to come to
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 61
her with questions. I have gotten a lot of encouragement from my teacher, and that has
impacted my work. It’s very important to me to have that kind of support.
When asked whether he felt that his development as a writer is important to his instructor, Hector
gave examples of his instructor building on and even challenging some writing formulas they
were taught in high school as evidence of his instructor caring about their improvement. He
stated:
I would say that it's important [to her]. She said that she tries to un-teach some of the formulas
that we learned in high school, not because they're wrong but because we can do better.
If she's trying to un-teach us something that's not wrong but it's just not the best, that
means she cares. She says we can do [it the way we learned in high school], but we can
do it better, too. Things like that show me that she cares that we get a better education,
not just a minimum one.
When asked if his perception of his instructor caring about his writing development affects his
work, Hector responded:
Yes, definitely. The more interest that my teacher shows, the more I want to improve, and I want
to show them that not only am I understanding what I'm being taught but also I know
how to use it.
In a more abstract sense, Kaleb posited that, in general, instructors must demonstrate that they
are striving to understand their students in order to effectively reach them. He stated:
I feel like perspective is important. Not just seeing it from your angle but from the
students’ as well. Going out of your way to remove your biases and going into the
students’ shoes. I think all teachers should do this. That really does help a lot. It would
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 62
help us be more motivated, and they could influence us more as students and it would
help us improve in our writing. Seeing us as equal helps. [Kaleb]
Julieta said of her instructor:
She accepts everyone's idea, she kind of asks you why you think that, she’s really understanding
in everything, so I think that totally made me a better writer. She gives her ideas, and
she’ll go along with what you’re saying if you disagree with her. She doesn’t say “no,
you’re wrong.” She tries really hard to understand us.
Julieta further added that because of how well she was doing in English 2, her current instructor
spoke to administrators on her behalf so that she could bypass English 1 and enroll directly into
freshman composition after completing English 2. When asked what effect this kind of support
had on her writing identity development, she responded: “I just feel like – myself –
that I’m doing well.”
Negative Feedback and Authoritative Andragogy
The theme of negative feedback and authoritative andragogy emerged as two participants
cited instances that were demoralizing and damaging to their progress. While every participant
expressed the importance of constructive feedback and supportive andragogy in their writing
class, only two participants shared experiences of negative feedback and authoritative andragogy
in their basic writing class. However, they circled back to this topic frequently throughout their
narratives. Other participants who did not experience negative feedback and authoritative
andragogy in their basic writing class addressed instructor behaviors relating to this theme in a
broader, more theoretical sense and defined how such actions would likely affect them as
developing writers.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 63
Error Correction and Deficit Orientation. Julieta and Karmen, who had negative
experiences in basic writing classes in previous semesters, both explained instances that stood
out to them as examples that were damaging to their writing development.
In my other class, I would write an essay, and she would just cross out something that was wrong
and not tell me why it was wrong. Or she would circle something and not give a reason
why. With this current teacher, we engage more with our classmates. [In the] previous
class, she explained how she wanted things done, and she had us write our notes a certain
way. It had to be in a way that she understood. We never had group discussions. We
never talked to our classmates. [Julieta]
Karmen explained why she did not successfully complete her first attempt at English 2:
She didn’t like it when we asked questions. I did not feel supported with that instructor, and the
instructor dropped me when I turned in my first essay with the works cited page in the
wrong order.
Karmen added that she is not enjoying her current assignment, which is a research paper, for
similar reasons:
I don't like it because every time I show it to her, she finds something that I did wrong. She says
I formatted this wrong or I'm trying to use big words and I'm trying to sound smart and
[she asks] why I am doing that.
Discouragement. Garrett responded extensively to questions relating to feeling
discouraged by a writing instructor. Although his current experience in his class is mostly a
neutral one, his anxieties relating to writing are informed by past negative experiences with
instructors who have discouraged him. He stated:
When somebody points out all of my errors it just feels really negative. I understand there could
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 64
be a lot of mistakes, but when there are too many negative comments, it makes me feel
like I can't read at all. There's a better way of saying it. When they make it too harsh, it
can make a student shut down even more, and they're really not going to want to write at
all because they feel embarrassed. I felt that way before, where, it's like, this teacher
thinks I'm sounding r******d, so why would I write something where the entire class is
going to see it, because then the whole entire class is going to think I'm r******d, too. If
it's a rude, negative person correcting your paper, you're really not going to get anywhere.
But if you have a kind person who's understanding and actually likes writing and wants to
help you, there is a chance for improvement and becoming a better writer and building
the confidence that you need to be a good writer. But I haven't found that person yet.
Xavier, who has not had an outright discouraging experience with his instructor, also expressed
that having an instructor respond to his work or progress in a negative manner affects his feelings
about the teacher-student relationship:
I like teachers who encourage me to do better but if I have a teacher that is being rude, it is just
no good. I'll still do my best, personally. I try not to let anyone put me down. But it does
change your feelings, especially if you look up to that teacher.
When asked whether she feels that having an instructor who she perceives is uncaring or
discouraging affects her development as a writer, Karmen responded:
Sometimes, but not really. I try not to let it… because I know that in college, you're on your
own, and you have to make it. I know that no one's really going to care about you. But if
I do feel that they care, it really encourages me. I might go after class and ask them
questions or go to their office hours.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 65
Karmen further elaborated that her instructor does not actively encourage class discussion and,
instead, discourages it at times with her attitude toward the students. Karmen explained:
She just picks a random name and asked him a question. And if they don't answer it, she gets
mad. She says, “It's very basic, it's right there in the reading. You guys need to learn
how to analyze.” She discourages us a lot and makes us feel bad because she puts us on
the spot, and if we don't know the answer, she gets mad.
Julieta explained the damaging effect of not allowing writers to voice their own ideas. She
explained that the reason why she failed her previous attempt at English 2 was because she
struggled with not being allowed to argue her own perspective in her argumentative essays. She
stated:
[My professor] had her own ideas, and you couldn’t really go against her, so as a writer, it’s kind
of like – you’re supposed to write your own ideas. It’s pretty hard to be able to speak out
with someone telling you you’re wrong. Getting your ideas shut down really un-
motivates you. So it’s just like I’m going to do bad anyway, she doesn't like anything I
write. It’s really hard to be told your idea’s wrong. That made me struggle a lot.
Although she was asked to write argumentative essays, Julieta added that they were not
permitted to take a different perspective on the argument.
If you would go against her ideas, she wouldn’t like it. So, she just assigned a prompt based on
what she wanted to hear. My first instructor was more of an authority figure, like “you
have to respect me, you can’t go against what I say.” I didn’t think that was helpful at all.
When asked if she felt that this type of writing instruction affected her development as a writer,
Julieta responded:
I do. The other professor, she didn’t really care if we wrote something good. She just wanted it
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 66
to be written in a certain way. She didn’t even care what you had to say. And I thought,
“if she doesn’t care, why should I care?” If they give you attitude and tell you they don’t
like your work, you say “whatever, I’m just going to do what she wants.” But if they
push you to do better and focus on what you’re trying to say, that’s really important. Not
just in that class, but in general. Not just for the grade. If someone’s shutting you down
and telling you you’re wrong all the time, you think “why am I trying any of this?” You
can't just shut down someone’s ideas and then expect them to be creative and make
something. It’s hard to write an argument and stand by it when it’s not yours.
Although Hector has not had a discouraging experience with his instructor, when asked what
might cause him to question his membership in the academic writing community, he imagined a
hypothetical scenario in which an instructor dismisses his idea, and he stated that that would
cause him to rethink engaging with that community. He stated:
I would feel that way if we read something, and I had a response to it, and I was told that my
response is not good enough or it's wrong analysis. I wouldn't want to speak up anymore.
Shaming. Two of the eight participants shared experiences of shaming in their class.
This differed from discouragement in that it involved an element of belittling or humiliation.
Julieta recalled an experience in her previous English 2 class, which caused her to question her
participation in higher education overall.
My first experience with my writing teacher was so bad that I took two years off. I
remember, the first day of class, I was running late, and I was nervous about my first day.
And she made me stand at the door and say, “You have to be five minutes early, not one
minute late” like four or five times in front of the class… She embarrassed me on my first
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 67
day. That totally changed my perspective on college. It made me think I shouldn’t be
here.
Karmen described a typical scenario in her current English 1 class, in which the instructor is
experiencing discipline problems. Karmen remarked that she is bothered by the way her
instructor manages the class and finds her comments to be problematic:
Sometimes she gives up on us. Sometimes my classmates try to get her off track on purpose, and
she gives in too fast and says, “Oh, you guys are just like high school students. I thought
you would be college students, but you're just like high school students.” When she tries
to explain something from the book, people start giggling. Last time, only four people
came to class. She said her summer class was more college level, and we're not. I notice
she has a really bad temper, and she gets mad fast. She doesn't know how to deal with
them.
When prompted to consider whether telling her class that they are like high school students
causes the behavioral problems to worsen, she responded:
Yes, definitely, because how are they going to know what it's like to be a college student if
they've never been one? Their behavior gets worse when she says that because then they
think it really is like high school.
When asked if she sees their class as a community of academic writers, Karmen insisted that
they are not a community at all because nobody cares.
Inclusion in Academic Discourse and Community
The second theme that emerged from the data related either to students feeling like they
are granted the right to speak in an academic setting or that their identities as academic writers
are developing in positive ways.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 68
The Right to Speak. Not all of the participants indicated that class discussion plays an
important role in their class; however, whether their classes included discussion or not, every
participant expressed the need for the opportunity to speak in order to feel included in the
academic writing community. Being granted the right to speak is particularly important for
individuals whose identities are marginalized in society and who may experience further
marginalization in higher education as basic writers. While Xavier mentioned that class
discussion does not play an important role in his class, when asked what it would take to
establish a community where everyone feels included, he stated that it would include an
opportunity for the students to discuss ideas with each other:
We need the chance to hear each other out. If everyone is respectful and they accept everyone
and their writing and their opinions with positive intentions, then that's a strong
community.
Other participants expressed gratitude toward their instructors as they reflected on their
experiences in class discussions.
I thought [the class] would be pretty boring, touching on high school English. But my professor,
thankfully, she gets us involved in discussions. I like debating… It makes me feel like I
know more, and I learn more when I have to defend my point. It makes me more
confident, too. She makes us sit in a circle. Instead of her standing up, she likes to sit
with us in the circle as a student. [Kristina]
Julieta expressed appreciation for opportunities to speak in her current class, and she juxtaposed
it with her negative experience in her previous English 2 class, in which she felt discussion was
not valued. She stated:
In my previous class, I would probably say that I wasn’t doing well. I couldn’t put my ideas out
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 69
there, so how am I going to be a good academic writer if I can’t say what I think? I felt
like we weren’t a community at all because we didn’t talk to each other. It was broken.
It felt like our professor was the community, and we just had to go along with it. [Julieta]
Hector contributed an additional perspective, in which he equated classroom discussion as a
greater opportunity for student learning, rather than upholding lecture as the best and most
efficient source of learning. He stated:
I know how students are. If we have questions, we’re kind of shy to ask them sometimes. But
when we have discussions, the teacher asks us questions. And then it opens up our mind
and it becomes like, okay, now I understand it, or now I have a better question to ask.
[Hector]
Kaleb noted that his instructor invites classmates who tend to be quiet in class to contribute ideas
and opinions during discussions. He specified that this never comes across as a command and is
instead perceived as a welcoming invitation to contribute; students feel comfortable enough to
decline if they prefer not to add to the discussion. However, Kaleb added that most students
accept the invitation and do join the conversation.
My professor doesn't push anyone to talk, and you don't have to. At first, I didn't really say
much, but I opened up a little because I felt like he wants to hear what I have to say.
That's the thing I really like about him. You never feel left out. [Kaleb]
Julieta even felt that students in her class were given explicit invitations to join the conversation:
When we started, no one wanted to talk. But then she would call on people and ask them
what they think. She would take people by the hand and pull them into the conversation.
It’s not like babying us; it’s the first taste of being able to discuss something with other
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 70
people, and you get more comfortable. And that’s important for building our community.
[Julieta]
Hector felt that the most important factor that goes into establishing a writing community where
everyone is included to participate is group discussions:
Get the students to talk about something that can be debated currently so it would get everyone
involved. If you do that in class and get people to understand that there are no right or
wrong answers, and anything can be right, people can maybe agree with you if you have
a chance to say something and explain why you think that. That's why discussion is so
important.
Writing Identity Development. Of the eight participants, three made comments that
alluded to their developing writing identities. Developing as a writer is a protracted process that
will look different for everyone, and it is not something that undergraduate writers ever really
consider. However, some of the participants were grappling with attitudes that demonstrated a
sophisticated understanding of themselves as developing writers. Julieta expressed her
reflections on becoming a writer who can assert her own ideas:
Before, I didn’t really like writing. I just thought it was a hassle. But now, it’s like you’re
writing your own opinion, so it’s kind of like a form of stating yourself. And no one can
really tell you that you’re wrong, and if they do, you have your reasons why you’re not
wrong, and you could just keep your own ideology, and I think that’s really important.
You have to persuade someone to see how you think.
Julieta’s uplifting experience in her second English 2 class allowed her to look at being placed in
basic writing as an opportunity for skill-building, rather than being held back.
I think I am doing well in being an academic writer, but I still need work. That’s why I’m in this
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 71
class and not college writing. They take us step by step in how to become an academic
writer. I’m getting there, but I need more practice. I feel like I could do well.
Hector stated that he felt included in a community of academic writers and that he regularly
questions things he is reading in an assigned text. He stated:
I think about this idea when I'm reading. I think about what the author’s process was and how
they came to those ideas. When I'm reading it, it makes me think, “Would I agree with
them or would I disagree?” That runs through my mind when I read certain things.
Especially when it's an argument, I think about how I would respond to it and if I want to
challenge it.
Kaleb recognized the importance of improving on his writing process, and not just product,
based on the priorities that his instructor has modeled for his class.
[My instructor] is not so focused on the end results in our essays. He wants us to be aware of
how we're writing and our style of writing… Be aware of how you’re structuring it and
why it's not working and know how to improve it. I know he wants to see us improve
from the outline to the rough draft to the final draft.
Academic Anxiety. Half of the participants expressed anxiety relating to their academic
identity, most specifically relating to their basic writing placement and feeling like they are
behind. While participants expressed that this anxiety was often driven by factors outside of the
classroom or ones that preceded their college enrollment, this expectation that they will not
belong informs their overall perception of their participation in higher education. Of the
participants who expressed these concerns, three demonstrated some degree of self-blame for
what they felt was unsatisfactory writing development.
I'm a quiet student. I follow all the rules of the classroom but I keep to myself and don't put
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 72
myself out there too much. I [would] rather not talk, but I can if I have a really important
question that I don't know the answer to. [Garrett]
I feel pretty low being in English 2. I feel like I'm behind. I should be doing more. I should've
done better in my placement test. All of my other friends are in one area and they're
above me. They don't put in the effort I'm putting in. And it's difficult for me because
I'm down here, and I'm trying really hard. And they're up there, and they're not doing
anything. So, I get frustrated. [Kristina]
If I'm not doing well, I think that maybe it's because I'm not asking questions. Maybe I'm too
quiet. Or I think maybe it's because I sit in the back, and sometimes even teachers say
that the students who sit in the back don't do anything. But I sit in the back because I
know that professors tend to ask questions of the people who sit in the front. I sit in the
back because I'm shy. [Karmen]
Having trouble reading and writing makes me feel [that I am outside of the academic writing
community]. It takes me longer than other people, and I don't feel like putting in that
extra time. It's just my own personal thoughts about myself. I would rather be outside
[of the academic writing community], not slowing everyone else down on the inside of
that community. I know that if you're not good at something, you should really practice
at it to build it up, but I hate slowing people down. [Xavier]
Three of the participants cited their bilingualism as a source of anxiety when it comes to their
performance in their writing class:
Academically, I feel strong, but not as a writer. I think it’s because I think in Spanish
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 73
sometimes, even though I’m fluent in English too. But it’s hard for me to write and to
feel like it sounds like a college paper. I feel like the words don’t sound good enough.
[Mariana]
My hardest subject is English, since I’m bilingual. I speak mostly Spanish. My parents didn’t
really know how to teach me English or read to me in English. So, it was kind of hard for
me to get into the habit of reading and learning how to read English. [Kristina]
I've struggled in English because it's my second language. I struggle with essays and
construction and grammar. In that aspect, I feel like I'm not good. I need help with that.
Every other subject is kind of universal. I can relate to my home. We speak Spanish at
home. [Kaleb]
Relatable Course Content
The fourth theme, relatable course content, emerged as all of the study participants
emphasized the importance of a relatable curriculum. The participants felt that ensuring that
content be relatable to all is one of the most important factors in establishing a writing
community where everyone is included or invited to participate. Hector even questioned how it
would be possible to participate in a community without knowing what everyone else is talking
about. He felt that a topic that lends itself to discussion and is available for all to participate in
can function as a tacit invitation to speak. To illustrate the eye-opening effect of a relatable
course reading, Xavier shared a past anecdote. This past experience of his became more relevant
to him in the light of a reading that helped him define the phenomenon he was not even aware
that he was experiencing. He stated:
We are looking at code switching readings. I think it's an interesting subject because I never
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 74
thought about how I speak to different groups of people in different ways. Like when I
went to get a scholarship I applied for, I was speaking differently because I didn't want to
be disrespectful or different. I went to an event for the people who won, and I was the
only black person there. That's when I have to really start thinking about my vocabulary.
But I realized I have to do a lot of code switching. I didn't even know what code
switching was back then either. I just knew I had to change how I talk real quick because
there was no one like me there. Going over the subject just opened my eyes to how much
I do it, and I was not aware of it. This reading showed me that sometimes the topic can
really connect your life and interest you. I am actually enjoying writing about this topic
for once. The paper is not even about me, but I understand what it is.
Mariana, who is also writing a paper on the topic of code switching, shared a similar sentiment
about the topic as an area of study. She stated that she is finding it to be an enjoyable topic, as it
caused her to reflect on the instances in which she practices code switching without realizing.
I don't really like to read, but the readings in this book make me feel like, “Okay, it really doesn't
have to be like that.” I like learning about code switching and stuff. It was actually
really interesting. I'm not usually a reader, but now I'm actually liking what I’m reading
about. I could relate to some of those people.
Additionally, Mariana alluded to another reading that she found relatable. She stated:
One of [the authors] is a Chinese woman who speaks English, but her mother has broken
English. So, I can relate to that because my mom doesn't speak English. She kind of has
broken English, too. A lot of times, I have to speak for her, like if were talking to the
bank. And the Chinese author had to do the same thing, when she was a little girl, for her
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 75
mother. So that relationship made me more interested in what I was reading. And I
could picture in my head what she was talking about.
Mariana also reflected on how her recent experiences of grappling with and understanding an
assigned text gave her newfound confidence with texts she encountered in the past and had
previously found intimidating or inaccessible. Her recent ability to relate to a published text
gave her reason to believe that she could find something to relate to in even seemingly
unrelatable texts. In that way, the accessible text functioned as a kind of entry point into an
academic conversation, which opens the door to discourse community membership. She said:
In high school, none of the things that we read were interesting to me. I just wanted to pass my
classes with a C. We read, like, Shakespeare, and he used a way different language than I
know. That's not regular English. I really wasn't getting it, and I wasn't good at it. If I
was to read it now, I could probably get into it. I really wasn't trying to get it, so that's
probably why it wasn't interesting to me. But if I was to read it right now or if my
teacher now gave it to me, I could probably get into it and be interested because I'm ready
to listen. Maybe I'll find something I can relate to because I know he talked a lot about
love. My age group, we're all about love.
Karmen compared the readings assigned to her in one of her English 2 attempts to those that she
was asked to read in English 1, and she explained how they were received differently:
That professor would never show anything interesting, so I never got excited. But this professor
shows us interesting things, and she asked us to write about something we learned, and I
realized that I still have that passion, and I got excited. The [other] readings were really
boring. It was about African-Americans are Chicanos. It wasn't just me -- a bunch of my
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 76
friends who are Chicano found it boring, too. Our current English class, she makes us
read about Asian writers or Maya Angelou.
When asked to clarify why reading about the struggles of African-Americans and Chicanos was
not interesting, but reading the works of Asian writers or Maya Angelou is, Karmen stated that
she did not find readings relatable simply because the topic related to people of color. She
preferred texts where people of color were elevated to the status of author, writing their own
varied narratives and exploring a full range of emotions from their own perspectives. She added:
The stuff about African-Americans would be about racism, or stuff about Chicanos was about
immigration. I didn't like that… I wanted more real experiences. Some of them could be
happy things or funny, too, and not always sad. It's not that I don't like history... I like
history. I just like hearing about their experiences from their own eyes. Maya Angelou’s
story was about her own experience with a racist dentist. I liked her perspective. I could
relate to her perspective.
Hector stated that the topics selected for discussion make him feel like he is part of the academic
writing community. He reasoned that in order to create a community where everyone feels
actively engaged, a relatable topic must be used as the entry point. He reasoned:
If you know less about it and you have less experience with it, then you will have less to say
about it. It has to be something universal or something that everyone has experienced.
Two participants expressed the importance of relatable course content specifically for a writing
course because, otherwise, it is like learning two disciplines at once:
As a writer I feel I can express myself fully when it comes to writing something personal. When
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 77
I have to write about concepts I don't understand, it's hard for me. I feel more
comfortable if it’s something familiar to me or relates to my perspective because then I
can focus on the writing. [Kaleb]
Kaleb was not the only participant who indicated that writing development suffers when it is
coupled with inaccessible or hard-to-grasp concepts. Garrett also described the mentally taxing
scenario of struggling to improve as a writer while simultaneously trying to understand a new
concept for a writing assignment:
It needs to be interesting. Like the code switching -- I like writing stuff that I could relate
to. When it has nothing to do with me, it becomes extremely tiring. And especially if I
try to learn about that subject and I still don't understand it, then it's just a waste of time.
Kristina explained the process by which texts that would be the most relatable to the students in
her class were selected. In the beginning of the term, their instructor distributed a list of topics
and had students anonymously mark from 1 to 5 based on how interesting they found each topic.
We all got to decide. She assigned us the ones that were most popular. Our class chose
immigration, race, and freedom of speech. The ones we didn’t choose are social media,
economy, gun control, and environmentalism. Our class is mostly Latinx, so I’m not
surprised that we chose those topics. [Kristina]
When asked whether she was happy with the result of the democratic process and if the readings
are interesting to her, Kristina responded:
This is my cultural background, and I’m really happy that our teacher makes us talk about this
type of issues. Our final is going to be about racial issues, and for once, I’m looking
forward to taking a final. I am more connected to this topic, and I know more about it, so
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 78
I feel confident writing my essays. Of course, I want to venture out there more and learn
more things, too. But, right now, I am enjoying this a lot.
Conclusion
This chapter presented an overview of the data collected from eight participant
interviews. This study sought to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of African-
American and Latinx basic writers in a public two-year college. In examining African-American
and Latinx basic writers’ perceived influence of andragogical strategies on their success in their
writing course and their writing identity development, four themes emerged resulting from the
one-on-one interviews with participants: (1) constructive feedback and supportive andragogy, (2)
negative feedback and authoritative andragogy, (3) inclusion in academic discourse and
community, and (4) relatable course content.
Students of minoritized backgrounds may be more likely to experience self-doubt
regarding their participation in higher education (Pizzolato, 2004). This study’s findings shed
light on the unique experiences of students of minoritized backgrounds who may also find
themselves occupying a marginalized space in higher education due do their placement in basic
writing. The data largely indicated that by privileging the perspective of the decolonized, by
allowing students to have a voice in the classroom and utilizing texts that encourage
participation, African-American and Latinx basic writers are more integrated in the fabric of
their basic writing classroom community. Furthermore, the implicit authority of an instructor in
a classroom of students who are aware that their institution considers them underprepared is far
reaching and can have lingering negative consequences if a critical and authoritative andragogy
is enacted. The final chapter reviews the findings of this study and discusses implications for
both practice and further research.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 79
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This qualitative study examined the perspectives, experiences, and perceptions of
African-American and Latinx basic writers at Highland Community College. Highland
Community College was chosen as the site for participant recruitment because of the college’s
status as a Hispanic-Serving Institution, its diverse population of students, as well as its mission,
which includes language about supporting student success for members of the diverse
communities it serves. This study sought to provide insight into whether and how African-
American and Latinx writers perceive that their writing instructors’ andragogical strategies
affects their success in their basic writing classes and, more broadly, their writing identity
development.
The significance of this study lies in the disparity of pass rates between students who
identify as either African-American or Latinx and their White or Asian counterparts in basic
writing. Evidence indicates that African-American and Latinx students are less likely to
complete a developmental course than their White and Asian classmates (Bettinger & Long,
2005). Students who do not successfully complete their basic writing requirements are prevented
from continuing on to credit-bearing courses and eventual degree attainment. Ideological bias
was examined in a six-year longitudinal study which tracked the academic progress of 61 basic
writers who entered the university with similar academic test scores and credentials. Faculty
evaluated exit essays according to Eurocentric pedagogy, and it was found that African-
American students failed and repeated the course at a rate three times higher than their White
counterparts, despite entering the same course with similar credentials (Agnew & McLaughlin,
2001). The researchers found that exit essays which included linguistic patterns which deviated
from formal academic writing and are common in many African-American communities were
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 80
not likely to pass. Conversely, in another study which examined the effect of culturally relevant
andragogy determined that participants responded positively to a culturally relevant writing
curriculum, which, among other things, included the integration of social and academic identity
and course readings relevant to their past experiences (Sealey-Ruiz, 2007).
There is an ever-growing body of research on basic writing; however, the influence of
andragogical strategies on African-American and Latinx basic writers is an important and
understudied facet of this academic discourse. While there exists a multitude of educational
inequities from early schooling and beyond for underserved and historically marginalized student
populations that contribute to this disparity in pass rates for basic writers, this study’s findings
reveal that the experiences of students within their basic writing classes, specifically relating to
how instructor andragogy and curricular choices are perceived, contribute to or inhibit student
success as well.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the findings and to provide researchers,
administrators, and faculty with an understanding of African-American and Latinx basic writers’
perceived influence of andragogical strategies on their success in their writing course and their
writing identity development andragogy. This chapter presents the significance of the gathered
data, the connections to the literature and theory, as well as implications for further research and
for practice. Additionally, learning from African-American and Latinx basic writers themselves
about their perceptions is an appropriate step toward restoring agency and voice to a
demographic often marginalized in academia, as well as in broader society, by allowing them to
narrate their own experiences and illustrate how those experiences have affected them as writers.
The research questions that guided this study are as follow:
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 81
1. What are African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the
andragogical strategies used in their writing class?
2. How do African-American and Latinx basic writers perceive these andragogical
strategies influencing their success and writing identity development?
Discussion of Findings
While scholarship which focuses on student perspectives of what transpires in the basic
writing classroom is beginning to increase, it is still a limited body of research. This study
sought to uncover students’ perceptions of whether and how instructors contributed to student
success in basic writing and in developing their academic writing identities, rather than placing
the burden of student success exclusively on the student.
Andragogical Strategies and Basic Writing Success
The first research question guiding this study asked about African-American and Latinx
basic writers’ perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies on their success in their
writing course and their writing identity development. In this study, participant narratives
demonstrated the consequences of a negative feedback and authoritative andragogy in
comparison to an egalitarian, dialogic approach. What an alternative might look like is a class
design which allows students the opportunity to build confidence in their developing writing skill
rather than creating a class dynamic where they must rely on an authority figure for approval. A
lecture-based class is often used instead of a more discussion-based format because of a
perceived pressure to help basic writers “catch up” in a short amount of time (Fox, 1990).
Because of their status as underprepared, a dialogic classroom might seem less beneficial than
one where students are delivered instruction from an expert authority. However, the act of an
instructor wielding their greater social identity over a student who has already experienced
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 82
marginalization academically, and also likely socially, can have severe consequences on their
success and academic writing identity development.
Participants indicated that the instructors who fostered a sense of equal footing between
themselves and their students were able to better connect with and engage their students.
Conversely, instructors who reinforced an authoritative hierarchy based on the distance between
students’ and the instructor’s knowledge prompted resistance, disappointment, disengagement,
and, for two participants, failure in the basic writing course. Instructors who responded with
negative feedback had the effect of causing students to disengage. This parallels the findings in
Piorkowski and Scheurer’s (2000) study, which demonstrated that students who expected a
critical or shaming response were not likely to seek help from their instructors. Instructors such
as Kaleb’s writing instructor, who not only admitted to not recognizing unfamiliar words, but
also demonstrated strong study habits by modeling how to use context clues and the dictionary,
had a positive effect. Instructors who actively worked to dismantle the ostensible authority they
had over their students and engaged them as equals fostered greater interest and natural
inquisitiveness in their students.
Additionally, participants expressed that texts which featured authors, narrators, or
subjects to which they could relate, such as codeswitching, felt more engaging and inviting to
them. These relatable themes allowed them to focus more on their writing, rather than
expending their energy on grasping an unfamiliar subject or worldview. Furthermore, it offered
a point of entry into classroom discussions. Similarly, Dunning’s (2009) study of six African-
American students, participants reported that relatable writing prompts and a personally relevant
curriculum enabled their success in their basic writing class. Pan’s (2012) study of community
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 83
college basic writers also demonstrated a student preference for essays that dealt with issues that
were close to them and were within their realm of experience (Pan, 2012).
Andragogical Strategies and Writing Identity Development
This study’s second research question asked how African-American and Latinx basic
writers felt that their perception of teacher ideology and andragogy affects the development of
their overall writing identity. A faculty member’s social identity possesses authority within a
classroom that a student’s social identity typically does not. The difference in status would be
more pronounced to a student deemed underprepared and placed in basic writing by their
institution. This difference in status is compounded further still to a student who likely has also
experienced social marginalization and oppression. Yet, these are the very students against
whom a deficit-focused teacher ideology and andragogy is aimed, often with the intention of
helping them. Authoritative and hegemonic instructional approaches in which students are not
heard and in which engagement is limited to correction can undermine African-American and
Latinx basic writers’ lived experiences and their ways of knowing.
The participant narratives included references to feeling empowered by pedagogical
approaches which specifically served to destabilize the inherent power structure of the
classroom. Participants listed factors that contributed to a positive academic writing identity.
Kaleb indicated that he felt empowered by his instructor’s careful consideration of student voice
and autonomy, which was apparent in his language choice during conferences. Kaleb focused on
the usage of the phrase “I recommend” to suggest essay revisions, rather than “you should” to
compel changes. While the latter reaffirms the student’s lack of knowledge and that he has
committed an error, the former creates a dialogue between two equally qualified members of the
academic writing community. Julieta’s negative experiences of being told “it’s wrong” with
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 84
little to no feedback or explanation was juxtaposed with her second instructor, who motivated
not by giving answers or solutions, but by questioning and engaging Julieta in her thinking. In
evolving as a writer, one of the most challenging aspects is learning to maneuver between being
the writer and the reader of one’s own text. A writer will not be able to revise her writing
effectively until she has learned to separate herself from the authorship of the text and adopt a
reader persona. Julieta’s statement is indicative of having developed that ability, which is
significant. In contrast, other participants described instances of excessive correction or
scenarios in which they were likened to high school students and were ascribed an undesirable
academic identity which they had not chosen for themselves; these instances proved damaging to
participants and their classmates, from participants’ observations.
The narratives revealed that participants largely had positive experiences when they were
invited to participate in academic discourse and when they were not made to believe that they
are, in fact, “strangers in academia” (Shaughnessy 1977). Furthermore, all participants
expressed a desire for classroom discussion and for voicing their ideas in the presence of their
community, revealing that discourse community membership is an important factor in basic
writing engagement and success. Participants noted that elevating their own experiences or
relatable authors’ experiences to a level that is worthy of academic discussion functioned as an
opportunity for students to enter the conversation. This is consistent with Bird’s (2013) assertion
that teaching students ways to integrate their social identity with their academic community
identification will better enable them to develop their academic writer identity. Crafting
scenarios such as this is especially important for African-American and Latinx basic writers
because, according to Pizzolato (2004), high-risk students may be more likely to experience self-
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 85
doubt regarding their participation in higher education. Pedagogical situations which reinforce
students’ place in higher education can work to alleviate those anxieties.
Implications for Practice and Research
This study highlighted the perspectives of African-American and Latinx basic writers and
demonstrated their perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies on their success in
their writing course and their writing identity development. The perspectives of these students
are valuable in determining how best to serve and support them as they embark on their journeys
of academic writing identity development. This section offers recommendations for writing
program administrators and writing faculty alike to better support African-American and Latinx
basic writers and to assist in appropriate skill-building to get them through the basic writing or
stretch composition sequence and into college composition.
Implications for Practice
In every interview, participants voiced a desire for classroom discussion or for an explicit
invitation to “enter the conversation.” This might seem counterproductive in a class of students
deemed underprepared; however, from the participants’ perspective, this is the most effective
kind of learning for students who are often alienated in academic settings. Additionally, a
dialogic approach inherently fosters an environment which allows for and normalizes errors.
To this end, writing program administrators and composition faculty alike should work
together to modify basic writing curricula. Particularly in minority-serving institutions, curricula
must include texts with representations of people of color in non-subjugated positions. The data
revealed that it is not enough to look at texts on the subject of the Civil Rights Movement or the
incarceration rates of people of color, to name a few examples. While texts which examine past
and present oppression and inequities are important, students expressed a desire for texts
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 86
authored by people of color where they are narrating their own story, or ones which represented
them in empowering ways.
Furthermore, writing program administrators should take an active role in training faculty
and shaping teacher ideology. Often, composition faculty are experts in composition, but not
necessarily in race and power relations. Many faculty members may not even be aware of their
own ideological biases, and opportunities for professional development may encourage faculty to
examine and question their own ideologies. A more relevant curriculum alone will not yield
positive results because an empowering andragogy will not be enacted if the appropriate
ideology does not bolster it. Faculty members must ideologically value the new curriculum and
pedagogical approaches in order to enact a andragogy where students’ lived experiences are
valued.
Implications for Research
While there is extensive research on basic skills education, a much smaller portion
focuses on basic writing exclusively. Of the extant scholarship on basic writing, much of it
focuses on outcomes and efficacy of the programs; there is little research which utilizes student
narratives to explain some of the outcomes data and to fill in the picture when addressing
efficacy. Although basic writing scholarship which examines student narratives is growing, it is
growing at a slower pace than other forms of research in this field.
Future research which considers student perspectives has the effect of restoring agency to
the research subject, which might possibly be the final frontier in basic writing scholarship – not
only examining the restoration of agency and consideration of voice of the decolonized in the
classroom in practice, but also conducting research in a parallel manner which ensures that the
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 87
student is heard. This form of research ensures acknowledgment of their perceptions of the
impact of andragogical strategies, as well as their lived experiences.
While a current popular assumption in the field is that a combination of stretch
composition and directed self-placement will alleviate many of the problems facing basic
writers, neither of these necessarily works to dismantle the potentially damaging power relations
between instructors and underprepared students. There is a chance that the discrepancy in pass
rates will be replicated in these new programs as well. Therefore, future research should also
include students who are in the stretch programs and who participated in directed self-placement
to determine whether the introduction of those variables minimizes feelings of marginalization
enough to overcome the ideological biases and teaching practices that some of the students
encountered and found challenging to work with.
Conclusion
The need for a clearer understanding of the unique obstacles that African-American and
Latinx basic writers face is imperative in order to understand how to remedy the disparity in pass
rates that exists for African-American and Latinx students as compared to their white and Asian
counterparts. Writing program administrators and faculty alike should not rely on the
assumption that stretch composition and directed self-placement will eliminate the difference in
pass rates. Ideological biases will not be addressed just by offering credit for basic writing in a
stretch sequence or by enabling students to choose their own writing class level. While these are
both steps in the right direction, when instructors operate under harmful ideological biases or
enact a damaging authoritative andragogy, African-American and Latinx basic writers struggle to
succeed or develop a solid writing identity. At institutions where they have adopted stretch
composition, whether students place themselves in college-level composition or in the very first
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 88
of the stretch courses, students may encounter ideological biases such as the ones present in the
participant interviews and the literature. Writing program administrators should plan to organize
trainings for composition instructors to enable African-American and Latinx writers to succeed.
Professional development to enhance content and practical knowledge is not the only factor that
can contribute to student success. Training should also focus on the topic of ideology and should
encourage instructors to examine their own biases so that they may be better equipped to interact
with and be sensitive to the needs of a diverse student population.

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 89
References
Agnew, E., & McLaughlin, M. (2001). Those crazy gates and how they swing: Tracking the
system that tracks African-American students. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Mainstreaming basic writers (85-100). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23.
Bartholomae, D. (1993). The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. Journal of
Basic Writing, 12(1), 4-21.
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131.
Bettinger, E. P. & Long, B. T. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student
participation and outcomes. In C. A. Kozeracki (Ed.), Responding to the challenges of
developmental education (pp. 51-84). New Directions for Community Colleges. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bird, B. (2013). A basic writing course design to promote writer identity: Three analyses of
student papers. Journal of Basic Writing, 32(1), 62-96.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness (Pittsburgh series in
composition, literacy, and culture). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bizzell, P. (1986). What happens when basic writers come to college?. College Composition and
Communication, 37(3), 294-301.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boylan, H. R., Bliss, L. B., & Bonham, B. S. (1993). The performance of minority students in
developmental education. Research in Developmental Education, 10(2), 1-4.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 90
Brammer, C. (2002). Linguistic cultural capital and basic writers. Journal of Basic Writing,
(21)1, 16-35.
Buchanan, I. (2010). A dictionary of critical theory. New York: Oxford UP.
Calcagno, J. C. & Long, B. T. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a
regression discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance.
New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research.
Callahan, M. K., & Chumney, D. (2009). “Write like college”: How remedial writing courses at
a community college and a research university position “at-risk” students in the field of
higher education. Teachers College Record, 111 (7), 1619-1664.
Chen, & Simone, (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions:
Scope, experience, and outcomes. Retrieved from:
https://nces.edu.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf
Collins, T. G., & Lynch, K. (2001). Mainstreaming? Eddy, Rivulet, Backwater, Site Specificity.
In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers (73-84). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cox, R. D. (2009). The college fear factor: How students and professors misunderstand one
another. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Dunning, J. (2009). African-american students in remedial english and reading at a community
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 91
college: Their experiences and perspectives (Order No. 3346263). Available from
Education Database; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text;
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304949232).
Evans, N., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fox, T. (1990). Basic writing as cultural conflict. The Journal of Education, 172(1).
Fox, T. (2015). Basic writing and the conflict over language. Journal of Basic Writing, 34(1).
Grubb, W., & Cox, R. (2005). Pedagogical alignment and curricular consistency: The challenges
for developmental education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129, 93-103.
Grubb, W. N. (2001). From black box to Pandora’s box: Evaluating remedial/developmental
education (CRCC Brief No. 11). New York, NY: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College. Columbia University.
Grubb, W. N. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Grubb, W. N. (2013). Basic skills education in community colleges: Inside and outside of
classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
Howard-Hamilton, M. & Hinton, K. (2011). Oppression and its effect on college student identity
development. In Cuyjet, M. J., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (Eds.). (2012).
Multiculturalism on Campus: Theory, Models, and Practices for Understanding
Diversity and Creating Inclusion. Sterling, US: Stylus Publishing.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity The discoursal construction of identity in academic
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 92
writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johnson, L. P., & Eubanks, E. (2015). Anthem or nah? culturally relevant writing instruction and
community. Voices from the Middle, 23(2), 31-36.
Journal of Basic Writing. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/jbw/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McCabe, R. H. (2000). No one to waste: A report to public decision-makers and community
college leaders. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges.
McNenny G. (2001). Introduction. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming
basic writers (1-15). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Melguizo, T., Hagedorn, L. S., & Cypers, S. (2008). Remedial/developmental education and the
cost of community college transfer: A Los Angeles County sample. The Review of Higher
Education, 31(4), 401-431.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.) (pp. 137-149). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mutnick, D. (1996). Writing in an alien world. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2013). Percentage of first-year undergraduate students who took
remedial education courses, by selected student and institution
characteristics: 2003-04 and 2007-08. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_270.asp
Ogbu, J.U. (1974). The next generation: An ethnography of education in an urban neighborhood.
New York: Academic Press.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 93
Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority coping responses and school experience. The Journal of
Psychohistory 18(4), 432-456. Ohman, R. (1995). English in America. New York: Oxford UP.
Olson, Gary A. (1999). Encountering the Other: Postcolonial Theory and Composition
Scholarship. In Ethical Issues in College Writing. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Pan, P. L. (2012). "It needs to be something I can relate to": The academic literacy of community
college basic skills students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No.
3511859).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Peele, T. (2010). Working together: Student-faculty interaction and the Boise State stretch
program. Journal of Basic Writing 29(2), 50-73.
Perun, S. A. (2017). “The more mistakes you have the better you could improve”: Two students’
interpretations of pedagogy in developmental and college English. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice 41(2), 93-106.
Piorkowski, J. L., & Scheurer, E. (2000). “It’s the way that they talk to you”: Increasing agency
in basic writers through a social context of care. Journal of Basic Writing 19(2), 72-92.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2004). Coping With Conflict: Self-Authorship, Coping, and Adaptation to
College in First-Year, High-Risk Students. Journal of College Student Development
45(4), 425-442.
Rickford, J. R., & Rickford, R. J. (2000). Spoken Soul: The story of Black English. New York:
John Wiley.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2007). Wrapping the curriculum around their lives: Using a culturally relevant
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 94
curriculum with African-American adult women. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(1), 44-
60.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guided for the teacher of basic writing.
New York: Oxford UP.
Shor, I. (1997). Our apartheid: Writing instruction and inequality. Journal of Basic Writing,
16(1), 91-104.
Soliday, M. (1994). Translating self and difference through literacy narratives. National Council
of Teachers of English. (56)5, 511-526.
The California State University (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.calstate.edu/eo/
Sommers, N. & Saltz, L. (2004). The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year. College
Composition and Communication, 56(1), 124-149.
Villarreal, M. d. L., & García, H. A. (2016). Self-determination and goal aspirations: African
American and Latino males' perceptions of their persistence in community college basic
and transfer-level writing courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
40(10), 838-853.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview
Studies. New York.
White, E. M. (1995). The importance of placement and basic studies: Helping students succeed
under the new elitism. Journal of Basic Writing, 14(2), 75-84.
Winslow, R. & Mische, M. (2001). Rethinking at-risk students’ knowledge and needs: Heroes’
decisions and students’ quests for identity and meaning in a content composition course.
In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers (145-172). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 95
Zhang, X. Y. (2000). National and regional profiles of developmental/remedial education at
public two-year institutions. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College,
8(1), 57-70.

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 96
Appendix A: Recruitment Email

Dear [Name],

My name is Nareen Manoukian, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at University of Southern California. I am conducting research as a part of my
dissertation, which examines the perspectives of African-American and Latinx students in basic
writing, focusing on their perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies on their success
in their writing course and their writing identity development. You are invited to participate in
the study.

If you agree to participate, you will receive a link to complete a brief survey. The survey will
take no more than 10 minutes to complete and will allow me to select 8-10 participants to
interview.

If you match the criteria of the research study, I will contact you to schedule an in-person
interview at your college campus. The interview will be approximately one hour long and will
be audio-taped, with your consent.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary, and your identity will remain confidential
both during and after the study.

If you are interested in participating, please contact me at nnmanouk@usc.edu, and I will send
you a link to the survey.

Thank you,

Nareen Manoukian
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 97
Appendix B: Pre-survey Questions
Thank you for considering participating in this study. Please answer the following questions to
the best of your ability. Your identity and responses will remain confidential. You may skip
questions you do not wish to answer, and you may opt out of the survey at any point.

What is your age?

What is your gender?

How do you identify racially or ethnically?

What is your first language?

Please select the most appropriate response for each of the following statements:

I feel that I am a strong writer

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

I have felt supported by the feedback I have gotten as a writer

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

I speak differently in my home community than I do in class

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

I feel comfortable asking my instructor for help on my writing

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 98
What my instructor thinks of me affects how well I do in class

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

Would you be willing to participate in a 60-minute interview?

If yes, please include your email.

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 99
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Introduction

Thank you for meeting with me today and for contributing your perspective to this study.
I appreciate your willingness to participate. This interview will take approximately one hour.
I am a graduate student at University of Southern California working on my Doctor of
Education degree. I am currently conducting a research study for my dissertation. I have chosen
to focus my study on the experiences of African-American and Latinx basic writers to better
understand their perceptions of the impact of andragogical strategies on their success in their
writing course and writing identity development.
I appreciate the time you are taking today to discuss your perspective. I want to remind
you that participation in my study is completely voluntary, and you may choose to not answer
questions if you do not feel comfortable. The data I collect will be kept on my computer and will
be used in my research, but none of it will be tied to your identity. I will use a pseudonym to
keep your identity confidential.
I can address any questions you have about the study now. Is there anything I can answer
for you? I would also like to ask for your permission to record our conversation so that I may
accurately convey what you say to me. The recordings are for my use only and will be shared
with no one else. May I record our conversation?

Interview Questions
Identity
1. How do you see your identity as a student?
2. How do you see your cultural identity?
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 100
3. How do you see yourself as a writer?
4. How would you describe your academic background?
Writing Development
1. Tell me about your level of interest in writing.
a. To what extent has writing appealed to you in the past?
2. How would you describe your level of interest in this course?
3. What kind of writing assignments do you enjoy, if any?
4. Do you think there are some kinds of instructor feedback on your writing that you find
more helpful?
a. What kinds?
5. Are there kinds that you find less helpful?
a. What kinds?
6. What kinds of lessons do you find the most useful for improving your writing?
7. What kinds of lessons do you find the least useful for improving your writing?
Relationship to Curriculum
1. What kinds of assigned reading texts does your class work with?
2. Do you think class discussions play an important role in your class?
a. If so, do you feel like you can contribute to discussions?
3. What kind of lessons do you have in class?
a. Do you find them useful?
b. Do you find them interesting?
Relationship with Instructor
1. What is your perception of your instructor?
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 101
2. How would you describe her/his approach to teaching your class?
3. How important do you feel your development as a writer is to your instructor?
4. Do you feel that affects your development as a writer?
a. Have you ever noticed your teacher’s attitude toward you impacting your work?
b. Are there instances that stand out?
c. How did it make you feel?
5. Can you describe to me some of your instructor’s teaching methods?
6. Do you feel there are things that your instructor could do or do more of to help you
become a better writer?
7. How does your instructor motivate you to participate in class discussions, if you have
any?
8. What do you think your instructor’s teaching goals are for the semester?
9. In what ways does your instructor work with you to improve your writing?
10. Can you talk about a time when you felt your instructor could have done more to support
your writing development?
Discourse Community Membership
1. How do you see yourself within a community of academic writers?
a. Do you feel a sense of belonging within your class’s writing community?
b. Is there anything that makes you feel like you are outside of that community?
2. Do you believe that your instructor sees you as a member of an academic writing
community?
3. Do you feel your instructor does anything that validates your membership in the
academic writing community?
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 102
a. Do you feel your instructor does anything that makes you question your
membership in the academic writing community?
4. What do you think it takes to establish a writing community where everyone is included
or invited to participate?

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 103
Appendix D: Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4033

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA:” AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX BASIC WRITERS’
PERCEPTIONS OF THE INFLUENCE OF ANDRAGOGICAL STRATEGIES

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Nareen Manoukian under the
supervision of Dr. Alan Green at the University of Southern California. Research studies include
only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this
study. You will be given sufficient time to read this document, and you will be asked to sign two
copies – one for you to keep, and one for the researcher’s records. You are encouraged to ask
questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand basic writers’ perceptions of the influence of
andragogical strategies on their success in their writing course and their writing identity
development. There is little research on the perspectives of African-American and Latinx
students in basic writing classes and to what extent they feel they are impacted by their teachers’
andragogical strategies. This study seeks to explore how African-American and Latinx students
in basic writing make meaning of and interpret their experiences. The study seeks to answer the
following questions: (1) What are African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the
andragogical strategies used in their writing course?; and (2) How do African-American and
Latinx basic writers perceive these andragogical strategies influencing their success and writing
identity development?The main goal of this study is to understand the phenomenon from
participant perspectives. Added insight into the experiences of African-American and Latinx
students in basic writing will help construct approaches for fostering better outcomes for these
populations and enabling them to succeed by better supporting them.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a one-to-one interview
audio-recorded interview which will last approximately 60 minutes. You will be asked to answer
the questions to the best of your knowledge, with no right or wrong answers. You do not have to
answer any questions you do not want to answer and can choose to end the interview at any time
with no consequences. You can also decline to be recorded. In this case, handwritten notes will
be taken. If recording has been initiated, you may ask to stop being recorded at any time. You
must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. Results of the study may be made
“STRANGERS IN ACADEMIA”: AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LATINX 104
available to participants after the study has concluded.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $25 Amazon.com gift card for participating in this study. You do not have to
answer all of the questions in order to receive the card. The card will be given to you after the
interview has concluded.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information acquired in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Participant responses will be assigned a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately from
any identifying information. Audio-recordings will be erased after they are transcribed.
Transcribed data will be saved on the researcher’s computer, will be password protected, and
will be stored in a locked cabinet to which only the researcher has access. The data will be kept
for three years and then will be deleted. Any hard-copy transcriptions and consent forms will be
shredded.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact Nareen Manoukian at
nnmanouk@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
For questions regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact the University
Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA
90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined the perspectives of African-American and Latinx basic writers at a two-year Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) in Southern California. While basic education pass rates are regularly studied, there is a dearth of research focusing on basic writers’ perceptions of the impacts of andragogical strategies. This study aimed to uncover African-American and Latinx basic writers’ perceptions of the impact of andragogical strategies on their success in their basic writing course and on their overall writing identity development. The sample used in this study included eight students enrolled in basic writing who are either African-American or Latinx. ❧ The findings suggest that African-American and Latinx basic writers feel that constructive feedback and supportive andragogy contribute to a positive academic writing identity and feelings of inclusion and membership in the academic writing community. Moreover, their performance in their basic writing class suffers when they are confronted with negative feedback or authoritative andragogy. Relatable themes and subjects, as well as a culturally relevant curriculum, appear to serve as a point of entry into academic discourse that may otherwise feel inaccessible. Recommendations for practice include the need for writing program administrators to organize learning opportunities during which faculty and administrators alike would be encouraged to examine, confront, and question their own ideological biases concerning basic writing students. Recommendations also include modified basic writing curricula which are more culturally relevant, as well as assigned reading texts which include positive representations of people of color.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Experiences of multiracial Asian American and Pacific Islander students at an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

The impact of teacher perceptions about underrepresented students

PDF

Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

PDF

The resiliency of African American adolescent females in the face of trauma exposure

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

The under-representation of Native Americans in masters of social work programs

PDF

Leadership and identity: perceptions, experiences and negotiations of women leaders in higher education

PDF

An examination of the possible selves of African American males in grades 9-12 and the educational systems that contribute to their positive and negative perceptions

PDF

Novice Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) school administrators' professional development and adult learning

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education

PDF

Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection

PDF

Creative trouble: an exploration of elementary classroom teachers' perceptions of their roles in educational justice

PDF

Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback

PDF

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

PDF

A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

Asset Metadata

Creator Manoukian, Nareen (author)

Core Title ""Strangers in Academia"": African-American and Latinx writers' perceptions of the influence of andragogical strategies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/30/2021

Defense Date 01/15/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic writing identity development,andragogy,basic writing,discourse community membership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Green, Alan (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member), Valizadeh, Nooshin (committee member)

Creator Email nareen.manoukian@gmail.com,nmanouki@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-161527

Unique identifier UC11660525

Identifier etd-ManoukianN-7373.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-161527 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ManoukianN-7373.pdf

Dmrecord 161527

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Manoukian, Nareen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA