[3] In 2007, Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle published an article titled "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions" in which they propose a reform of first-year composition instruction based on the results of a test course they developed.
[4] The article is considered to be revolutionary by other scholars in the field, and it is frequently cited by those who have continued the work in developing WAW approaches.
In the article, Downs and Wardle deny the existence of a universal educated discourse, which conflicts with first-year composition goals of preparing students to write across the curriculum.
She reaffirms their main point as being "that we should reconceive the nature of FYC goals and focus on the content knowledge we have as a field from which students can benefit.
Also, the article reports on several instructors incorporating graduate level writing-studies readings into their first-year writing courses with much success.
Charlton writes, "Students were engaged and were developing research questions and projects that rivaled my on senior-level composition theory class, both in terms of complexity and overall quality of finished products.
Carter points out instructors only account for a small portion of the composition community, and therefore disagreement is common and "often in fundamental ways.
"[7] In their response to Downs and Wardle, Miles et al. claim a WAW approach seems like it serves as an introduction to a writing major, which would not be beneficial to first-year students.
They also argue that Downs and Wardle fail to give voice to the students in their case study who did not benefit from the WAW approach and that only those who did are highlighted.
This disappoints me, because I do maintain the ideal of scholarship wherein a constructive dialectic stretches, shapes, and builds ideas rather than merely tearing them down.
(Earning the condemnation of an entire department is bracing-and ironic when the scholarship of some of the signatories – for me, Schwegler and Shamoon – planted seeds of ideas they find unworkable.
The authors also argue that Downs and Wardle fail to position themselves into an ongoing conversation in the same way they advocate for in WAW.
They also reference Peter Elbow as being someone who touched on similar ideas to WAW long before Downs and Wardle published "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions.
[6] Published in 2011, Downs and Wardle's book is described as "encouraging students to draw on what they know in order to contribute to ongoing conversations about writing and literacy.
Its publisher's website describes it by saying "Throughout the book, friendly explanations and scaffolded questions help students connect to readings and — even more important — develop knowledge about writing they can use at work, in their everyday lives, and in college.