Adult Basic Writers

Stine, Linda. “Basically Unheard: Developmental Writers and the Conversation on Online Learning.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 38.2 (2010): 132-149. ProQuest. Web. 7 February 2011.

In her recent TETYC article, Linda Stine complicates the discussion of online and hybrid composition classes by drawing our attention to a group that she says receives little attention in the literature: adult basic-writing students. Stine begins by relating her growing realization that the students who appeared in “article after article filled with enthusiasm for Internet-based higher education” did not resemble the students she taught. Stine writes that, at least according to the articles she read, in order to benefit fully from online composition, students should posses a veritable laundry list of positive academic, financial, and social qualities, from clear academic goals to a good computer to the ability to learn equally well independently and from peers. As Stine asserts, “Most basic writing instructors would be hard pressed to fit their students into that general profile.”

Stine’s stated purpose is “to help close the knowledge gap by providing a preliminary exploration of some important factors at the intersection of basic writing pedagogy, adult learning theory, and online education research.” The three specific areas she focuses on are technological aptitude, academic skills, and individual learning characteristics, further subdividing each of these larger categories into smaller foci such as access to technology, emotion and learning preference, and cognitive load. Her technique is to present, in brief, relevant research, which she then connects to her own experience with adult basic writers. Stine’s emphasis is on the research rather than on personal anecdote; indeed, the article serves as a useful synthesis of a fairly wide range of sources and could be used as an annotated bibliography of sorts for those who wanted to examine any of the many issues she raises in more detail. (For instance, I was intrigued by a meta-analysis of online learning studies she referenced, which I saw as connecting to my own research. The analysis appears here.)

Despite Stine’s cautions against assuming that adult basic-writing students will automatically benefit from online and hybrid writing classes in the same ways that, say, full-time or tech-savvy students might, she does not advocate shying away from technology-rich writing environments. Instead, she writes that “it is essential that we learn more about how to provide a successful online experience for this vulnerable student population,” and ends her article by suggesting a number of research questions to help us in this quest.

Stine’s article was interesting, and I would recommend it to a peer principally as a very readable annotated bibliography. As a teacher of basic writing, though, I found myself wishing for more answers than questions. I agreed with her cautions and was enriched by her thorough research, but I still found myself wondering how to proceed in my own classes. It may be unfair to criticize Stine for failing to provide a clearer path, since her purpose seems to be to highlight an area that has been under-researched. However, I did finish her article thinking, “OK…now what?”