Talk:First-year composition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenny Pimenta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
In the scholarly field of Composition & Rhetoric, the ideas put forth in the article are thought of as "old-fashioned." It is no longer the case that students learn to write essays in the genres mentioned. Also, rhetoric has been used widely in composition classrooms since the 1980's. It is clear that the individual(s) who authored this page are not current with composition theory.


 * "Social-epistemic" links to cognitive rhetoric. Is this a mistake? Bcgelms (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmwick, SVanCamp, ElizabethPedder. Peer reviewers: Nlky.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam's Peer Review
First, I am not sure about the use of the word 'American' in reference to institutions/universities. This can be a pejorative term for some people, and I think something such as 'United States' might be more neutral.

The lead does a nice job of introducing the subject, but I would say that it doesn't really follow the structure of the outline or body. It also emphasizes First Year Composition from a professional standpoint disproportionately to the other aspects of it.

Structurally, I would highly recommend putting the 'debate' section at or near the end of the page, rather than as the second section.

The debate section is a bit disproportionately long/large compared to the other sections (and this might be appropriate/intentional, I am not sure). The sentence, "While there is no American standard curriculum for first-year composition, curriculum is developed at several levels, including the state, institution, department, and writing program." is a little awkward, and I would recommend revising or rephrasing this.

I would also recommend examining the section on process pedagogy. The sentence, "A class that implements process pedagogy aims to improve students' skills as writers by working in one or more groups on brainstorming, revising, proofreading, and 'workshopping' students' work before they submit a final draft." for example is a list of activities related to process pedagogy, but which certainly in no way define or are necessarily elements of it.

One other thought is that while post-process pedagogy is mentioned in the lead, it is not elaborated on in the body.

Nlky (Adam) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlky (talk • contribs)

Unsupported claim.
Article states that no standard curriculum exists at the national level but that it is developed at the state and institutional levels. Is this verifiable??? There's no source cited that makes or supports this claims. Coffeecowsncats (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)