My working pedagogy 3.0.

I have really been stretched this semester to rethink the objectives of the English language arts field and even just my teaching pedagogy in general.

I really think that the English language arts field is at a crossroads. Should we still be basing our curriculum around literature if 97% of students are not going on to pursue degrees in English/literature? I still believe literature has a place in the classroom, but might it be more important to teach students skills that are applicable to their lives, that will better help become life-long learners? This younger generation communicates, learns, and thinks fundamentally different than previous generations. Students today need a new set of skills to be successful in the twenty-first century.

The starting point for a redirection of the field is technology. I don’t believe that computers are a panacea for all of our educational woes; however, technology provides many great learning opportunities that most schools and educators are wasting. Too often technology is feared or thoughtlessly discarded, creating a barrier between students and teachers. One essential key is that teachers need more professional development regarding new technologies. More intra and interdisciplinary collaboration should also be taking place.

A twenty-first century classroom means giving students more responsibilities and freedom, though teachers still have an essential role in guiding students, creating meaningful projects, and challenging students to think critically about the tools they are using. Teachers should realize that they need not be technology gurus and that they can learn from their students. Though students may be more familiar with new technologies, they still need to learn the skills that allow them to use these tools more effectively and prudently.

Finally, the most important conclusion that I’ve come to this semester goes beyond issues of technology, curriculum, and pedagogies. The most essential quality of good teachers is that they care about their students. Truly effective teachers are those who take an interest in their students and foster healthy relationships. I believe in the importance of encouraging, challenging, and guiding students regardless of the tools being used and the skills being taught.

Midterm

When thinking about teaching a first-year composition course, I believe it is important to first consider some fundamental questions about the purpose of education. I believe that students need a solid foundation in composition and rhetoric, especially in tertiary education; however, the meaning of both composition and rhetoric are in a state of volatility. Students need to question themselves, their culture, and various texts with which they are interacting in order to form personal opinions and develop new ideas. This means students need to efficiently access information, to think critically about that information, and to creatively and effectively communicate this information in a variety of genres using multiple modalities. Students should be learning a variety of tools that help them research, think critically, and express their ideas, in order to become contributors to the academic community.

Rhetoric plays a vital role in this process because composition is concerned with the dialectic. The traditional five canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery, offer students a valuable lens to view argumentation. Because arguments are being communicated in a growing number of diverse genres, the basic definition of composition needs to be expanded. Basically, first-year courses need to teach students two things: how to think critically and form personal opinions; and how to communicate these ideas in a variety of modes and genres.

I like a lot of Peter Elbow’s ideas for several reasons. For example, his advocacy for freedom and exploration in writing and his emphasis on voice are important in student discovery (Elbow, 15). However, I think that too much freedom leaves students without a vision, and therefore, encumbers students from expressing their voices. Elbow’s expressivist pedagogy succeeds in helping students to explore their personal ideas, but unfortunately falls short in setting students’ individual ideas in the context of a larger academic conversation. Expressive writing has its place, but in first-year composition courses there needs to be a greater focus on situating oneself in a greater academic discourse.

As Patricia Bizzell claims, Elbow and fellow theorist David Bartholomae are not quite as different as they would like to think (Bizzell, 174). Bartholomae also believes in acknowledging students as important contributors to academic discourse; however, he differs in that his focus seems to be more geared towards content rather than the student. Gerald Graff takes this notion one step further in explicitly declaring the main focus of composition to be argumentation (Graff and Birkenstein, ix). The college environment is a place where ideas should be continually posited and challenged which necessitates a group of scholars (students included) that think critically about these ideas and formulate new ones. Graff’s work has helped to restore the role of rhetoric in the academy which, in turn, has also had major implications in composition courses. The claim that we should focus on the conflict itself and the realization that no solution will be resolved perpetuates an open culture of diverse ideas. This is the type of culture we should preparing first-year student to participate in.

Furthermore, Bartholomae notes the necessity of students positioning themselves individually within their larger cultures. Patricia Bizzell comes in perfectly here because her holistic approach not only bridges the gap between Elbow and Bartholomae (Bizzell, 174), but also focuses on students understanding their specific social and cultural positions, so that they might better comprehend their place in the larger academic discourse. This self awareness allows students to better contextualize their arguments and to appreciate the diverse multiplicity of perspectives in this increasingly globalized world. I also like Bizzell because she discusses the importance of teaching students the writing structures and styles that will be effective in expressing these ideas. This ideally combines critical thinking and communication.

Finally, Walter Ong supports my pedagogical vision of first-year composition courses in that he acknowledges the momentous affects that shifting modes of communication have on education. Ong is known for his consideration of oral culture and the paradigmatic changes that took place with the advent of the alphabet and furthermore with the printing press. In addition, Ong posits an idea of secondary orality in which, due to the influence of technology, our society is transforming into one that foregrounds the digital word (Ong, 134). This idea has helped me understand that the very nature of communication is transforming, namely due to the internet and the various tools available through the net. Therefore, education should be changing too, otherwise it will be left in the dust (which is already beginning to happen, at least in secondary education). It is essential not just to use technology as a tool, but to use inquiry to explore the outcomes of utilizing various modes and genres in communication. The bottom line is that students should have many opportunities to use technology in first-year composition courses; however, students must also spend time thinking critically about the various social, political, and cultural implication of using technology as a tool.

In short, first-year composition courses should be about learning to formulate and articulate ideas in the academic community. This means taking into account one’s social, cultural, and political situation when forming ideas as a part of the wider discourse. Students should be able to articulate their ideas in a number of modes and should be especially adept in doing so digitally.

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow.” College Composition and Communication. 46 (1995): 62-71.

Bizzell, Patricia. “On the Possibility of a Unified Theory of Composition and Literature.” Rhetoric Review. 4 (1986): 174-180.

Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. 25th Anniv. Ed. Cambridge: Oxford UP, 1998.

Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. New York: Norton, 2006.

Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. 1982. London: Routledge, 2002.

Teaching Pedagogy 2.0

This semester I have been forced to rethink some very core ideas about teaching and education. Questions about the purpose of secondary and tertiary education, the curriculum of English, Language Arts, and/or Composition courses, and the role of educators in the classroom have been floating around my brain for weeks now.

The biggest challenge that I have been faced with is the use of technology in the classroom. This issue takes precedent because the role one allows technology to take in his pedagogy is directly related to the way he views the purpose of education and curriculum. I have thought deeply about the use of computers in the secondary language arts classroom and have considered the challenges and potential pitfalls it poses. On the other hand, I have also pondered the potential that digital technology has in engaging and motivating students in a profound new way. Students need to learn to use technology as a tool and not to become technology indulgers as Cynthia Selfe would say.

One of the most interesting things to look at is the multitude of new genres that are developing thanks to the internet. Wikis, blogs, and web 2.0 necessitate new understanding of the terms author, audience, and ownership. Thinking critically about the political, social, and cultural implications of changing from a society centered on print to one centered on the digital word is crucial. Furthermore, digital literacy needs to be included in language arts curriculum because students are now using digital means of communication almost exclusively when outside the classroom. Communicating effectively should be one of the primary goals of language arts; however, communication and literacy take on new meanings in the digital age.

I still believe that the primary goal of teachers should be to foster critical thinking in their students. Students must learn to respond to a variety of ideas, developing their own unique positions. Whether students go on to continue their education or go straight into the workforce, complex thinkers create a better society. Likewise, civic literacy should be an essential part of the classroom because thoughtful citizens also create a better society. These may be idealistic notions, but I believe that teaching students to be responsible citizens is an important role of the educator.

Kathleen Yancey

The three main ideas which shape the work of Kathleen Yancey are technology, portfolios, and assessment. While I am not as familiar with her work with the latter two, I have found abundant evidence of that shows how her work with technology has helped to shape current methods in composition and rhetoric. Rhonda’s use of the interview with Yancey added great insight into one of the important theorists we are studying this semester. In addition, Yancey, like Selfe with memory, is interested in the five rhetorical canons and how they can be applied to our evolving definition of texts and literacy.

Rhonda mentioned two works that Yancey stated as those of which she is most proud. One of these is the article “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key” which I read as a part of my annotated bibliography, so I thought I would share a bit. This piece is based on the CCCC chair address in 2004 and addresses the current “tectonic” changes in literacy. Yancey does so by comparing the writing public of today to the reading public that developed in nineteenth century England in that they are both socially constructed, politically and economically driven, and that both take place outside of the traditional education system. The growing number of genres that students are using means that students can no longer be considered educated by mastering reading and writing alone (305). Communication and education have turned digital, but most assessment methods are lagging drastically behind. This is interesting in light of CSAPs, which many of us have just finished. We are still asking students to respond chirographically (not even through print) though the vast majority are far more adept with the digital word. Yancey backs a new curriculum emphasizing the textual relationships and context of composition. Finally, Yancey identifies three keys to composition that address a writing public: the circulation of composition (the view that all “writing” is done as a part of a conversation), the canons of rhetoric, and deicity of technology. Deicity deals with the time and space in which texts are created.

Yancey brings up a lot of interesting new ideas regarding the incorporation of technology and challenges her audience to embrace the idea of composition in a new key. I personally found this article to be both challenging and inspiring. The author speaks with such passion that it is hard not to get excited about trying new methods to challenge students to think critically about the world around them. In particular, I am interested in her discussion of the cannons of rhetoric, which she believes are all interrelated though she focuses mainly on the two most neglected ones, memory and delivery.

Cynthia Selfe

Selfe seems to be interested primarily in the social, political, cultural, and historical issues surrounding the use of technology in education. She supports the utilization of technology but more importantly argues that a closer look should be taken as to how the implication of technology is affecting both students and educators, and the climate of education as a whole.

One of the first acknowledgements that Selfe makes (and unfortunately relatively few secondary teachers are making) is that outside of the educational setting students are engaging with technology obsessively, impulsively and often thoughtlessly. This brings up a couple of issues. First of all, educators of an earlier generation are rarely as tech-savvy as their students, so a new form of digital divide is increasing between these two groups. Secondly, students are not only imprudently accessing information, but they are also recklessly supplying information about themselves. Students may have adept skills in using technology, but they need to be taught to use these skills in tandem with critical and metacognitive thinking.

Selfe’s interest in hypertext theory is very interesting to me. This theory is somewhat associated with postmodern theory in that it favors a decentered rather than linear view of texts. Likewise, hypertext theory concerns arrangement in terms of the five canons of rhetoric. In terms of authority and ownership, many changes have taken place since print culture, blurring the lines between reader and writer. I like this theory because, though we don’t know all of the implication technology will have on society, this is a good way to begin reflecting on the monumental changes our society is experiencing.

Selfe and her fellow collaborators like Gail Hawisher advocate critical thinking when incorporating technology because they make the point that technology is not neutral – though who control it have a political agenda just like with any other medium. It is crucial that students learn to see the political connections associated with their use of this tool and not to be simply blind indulgers of technology.

Erika Lindemann

There are two major ideas about Erika Lindemann that stuck out to me after Rebecca’s presentation. First, Lindemann is firmly entrenched in the camp that rejects the use of literature in freshman composition courses. Second, Lindemann advocates a System model for the teaching of freshmen compostion courses which attempts to reconcile the differences between the process and product models of writing. These arguments are important because they bring up some interesting questions like: What should be the purpose of entry level composition classes? How should literature be defined?

I think the most important argument that Lindemann makes in her dispute with Tate about whether or not to use literature in freshmen comp classes is that students need opportunities to engage with a variety of genres, styles, and modes of writing. These types of courses should not be designed to breed English majors only; the reality is that most of these students will be moving on to other areas of study far away from literature like engineering, business, or computer information sciences. With students heading in such an array of directions, it is important that they cultivate skills that enable them to engage with many different types of texts. Furthermore, students should be prepared to participate in argumentative discourses outside of the academy and, therefore, need a host of rhetorical and composition skills in order to effectively do so. In addition, as mentioned in class, when using literature to model writing, one runs the risk of the literature becoming the focal point instead of the actual writing.

Lindemann’s system model of teaching composition supports these arguments because it is focused on students' writing. Positioning herself between Peter Elbow and David Bartholomae in their debate, Lindemann not only accepts and rejects ideas from the two, but posits her own notions as well. Belief in the careful reading and analyzing of texts, preparing students to “negotiate the demands of writing in varied disciplines” (Wasil handout), and developing a collaborative environment are all essential ideas to the System model. I also love the quotation that Rebecca provided from Lindemann: “Our goal is to improve writers, not individual pieces of writing.” Unfortunately, there are too many teachers that fail to adhere to this advice.

Kenneth Bruffee

Bruffee is a major advocate of collaborative learning and believes this process contributes to significant benefits in the attainment (or invention) of knowledge. In addition, Bruffee supports the use of collaboration in writing centers, the composition classroom, and in writing in other disciplines as well. Bruffee’s collaborative theory is grounded on social constructivist epistemology which asserts that knowledge and even reality do not exist until they are socially constructed. In some ways Bruffee’s ideas seem to coincide with Graff’s well-known decree to “teach the conflicts” in that students are learning to situate themselves in a larger academic discourse. However, Bruffee’s ideas are not purely based on argumentation; instead, he sees the collaborative process as a time of creating knowledge.

I agree with Bruffee in that collaborative learning has many benefits: it is a way to attain new points of view, it challenges students to develop their own position, and it engages students in the dialogic academic setting. My major contention with Bruffee is his assertion that learning can only take place socially. While I concede that all knowledge is ascertained through some sort of interaction between ideas, I argue that this can be done by an individual. A student can go to the library on their own, pick up a book, and engage with the author of that text. Though many people may benefit from having a group discussion about the contents of the book, why is it impossible for the individual to develop his own opinions and to attain knowledge without the collaborative process?

I would like to learn more about the specific methods that Bruffee advocates for the collaborative process in terms of composition. This collaborative process seems to include, though is not limited to, the peer review process. But how else does he socialize the learning process? Furthermore, in a model like this, how does the instructor ensure that groups are engaging in higher order thinking rather than conversing on trivial points on a text and making superficial corrections to writing?

Hugh Burns

Hugh Burns’s visit to class last week was a real pleasure. Burns has an engaging and approachable personality. His talk focused on many of the foundational ideas of rhetoric like the seven liberal arts of Ancient Greece which include the trivium (logic, rhetoric, and grammar) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). The quadrivium is particularly interesting because of the assertion that students must master the seemingly disparate fields of mathematics, science, and music before grappling with philosophy. Though these ideas are literally thousands of years old, they tie in well with the emphasis on an interdisciplinary approach to higher education that Burns supports. Burns is an advocate of Writing Across the Curriculum and also considers the role of technology in areas other then English.

Burns also spoke on the four Language Arts which are speaking, writing, listening, and reading. The first two are heuristic which involves solving problems under conditions of uncertainty, while the latter two are concerned with hermeneutics or interpretation. The most interesting part of Burns’s talk was when he spoke on his area of expertise: technology. He provided an interesting perspective on programming software that applies algorithms to language. A three pronged approach to artificial intelligence was also explained by Burns, which includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, and search. Finally, I found his approach to writing interesting. Burns stated that he writes about four or five pages daily without completing any prior research. He said that he “tries to get the light to come on in here [motioning to his heart]” before validating his ideas through research. This ensures a certain authenticity of ideas.

Burns also spoke on Wayne Booth, a literary critic from the University of Chicago. His first and most influential book Rhetoric of Fiction defends the role of the author, specifically an “implied author” or speaker who posits some statement of truth. This idea goes against the theories of New Criticism which attempt to view a text in isolation, apart from contextual information. Other works include A Rhetoric of Irony, Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Ascent, The craft of Research, and Rhetoric of Rhetoric.

Brammer and Brees

The main argument of the article by Brammer and Brees is that peer review is a valuable part of the writing process if done in the right way. It seems that many composition instructors have accepted that peer review should be a part of the writing process, yet they fail to thoroughly instruct students in how to successfully participate in it. Teachers must increase time preparing students, use multiple ways of presenting the strategies of the process (lecturing, handouts, and modeling), and demonstrate to students that they themselves believe in the value of peer review (81). This helps students to go deeper than simply making proofreading corrections.

The basis for this article was a survey conducted at a predominantly “white, middle-class, suburban” university in which the researchers questioned both faculty and students on their experiences with and attitudes toward peer review. The results were not terribly surprising: most students and faculty believe that there is some value in the process. It is more interesting to look at these statistics next to the results from the L2 survey. Most L2 students also believe in the importance of peer review; however, they experience more anxiety and reluctance to participate because of the inherent power relationships involved in the process. Though students who are still struggling to master the English language may have very valid, even profound, thoughts, they have far less confidence in expressing them because of the communication barrier.

One of the ideas suggested by Brammer and Rees is that in order to have an effective collaborative peer review experience, a rapport must be developed among group members. “Students need to create a sense of shared community in order to develop dialogues of trust and to build confidence in their classroom peers” (81). Because writing is a very personal process and sharing one’s writing means making one’s self vulnerable, creating a positive, nonjudgmental environment is extremely important in ensuring that students can be confident about their writing as well as the peer review process.

Kratzke

Kratzke frames his article around the concept of “recopying to revise;” however, his main argument is that teachers must train students to remain (or become) independent of computers. Instructors cannot be Luddites; technology should be used as a tool provided that it assists and does not interfere with students’ cognitive and composition processes. The notion of drafting was interesting for me because I’m young enough that I always remember being able to save documents, whether on a thumb drive or floppy disk. I’ve never had to rewrite multiple drafts, but imagining this leads me to the conjecture that, although painstaking and time-consuming, drafting in the old sense must have done much more to improve student writing than the current revision process. As Kratzke claims “much student writing lacks a certain human quality” (authors emphasis) (15). The major issue is that students are skipping the entire cognitive process: spell check and grammar check make most of the corrections for students, and the corrections the students do make on their own are superficial. If real, in-depth revisioning is not completed, then students are unwittingly tweaking the same first draft over and over.

One issue brought up by Kratzke is the notion that student achievement in composition is not increasing. For scores of years instructors have lamented over their students’ declining writing skills. If these instructors are never satisfied can it possibly mean that good writing is simply not easy to do? I personally believe that great writing takes incredible amounts of time, effort, and practice (and possibly a little natural talent). All other writers, whether poor, mediocre, or good, can always improve, but I’m not sure that it is possible to have a massive quantity of great writers.

Kratzke quotes Jane Healy pondering the Ongian possibility that “the act of reading itself may be on the way to obsolescence” (13). NPR had a report this morning of a university in Mississippi that has made the transition to all computer-based textbooks. The benefits and disadvantages will continue to be argued, but the fact remains that physical texts are losing ground in many ways. I agree with Kratzke that the “transactional” nature seems to be missing when you read a text on the computer; however, I’m sure that new modes of cognition will develop with technology. The important thing is that this metacognitive process does not become obsolete.

Tasker and Holt-Underwood

This article summarized the major arguments that have been developing over the last forty years in feminist literary criticism and theory. The article really doesn’t posit any ground-breaking new ideas; instead, it reminds the reader of the long and difficult struggle that women have faced in achieving an equal voice in society. Feminist historiography in composition and rhetoric reveals the silencing of female voices throughout the literary tradition. Criticism of the early aspects of this approach is that “feminist methods are highly interpretive, difficult to identify, and often only implied” (57). Over the last couple of decades, approaches to and opinions of feminism in the literary field have grown tremendously and have become much more diversified.

One assertion that I found particularly interesting was brought up by Patricia A. Sullivan. Tasker and Holt-Underwood explain that “Sullivan argues that women’s cognitive functions are different than men’s” (58). I would be interested to hear an explanation of exactly what these differences are. The debate between Biesecker and Campbell was also particularly interesting. The two argue about historical methodology and both claim the other is further silencing women’s voices. I agree with Campbell that not all women (or individuals) have “equal rhetorical ability;” there are innumerable factors that determine one’s abilities, and no two individuals are exactly alike. One of the things that is made the clearest in this article is the notion of pluralism in feminist methodology. Every individual has her own experiences, methods, and agendas creating endlessly diverse perspectives. That “pluralism thrives” (67), is a notion that is central not only to feminist research methodologies, but to all of theory and criticism in general.

Bartholomae Presentation

Like Bizzell, Bartholomae emphasizes the importance of preparing students for academic discourse. Students must find their place within culture and must be self-aware. Bartholomae seems to keep it pretty simple: students must learn their place within cultural contexts, the analysis of academic texts must be at the center of the thought process, and engaging in academic discourse is the ultimate goal for these students.

The debate between Elbow and Bartholomae makes public a discourse on the appropriate approaches to composition and language. Comparing ideas of social versus individual contexts of writing, and trust versus skepticism of language are interesting disputes. I agree with Bartholomae that language should be distrusted because it is constantly being manipulated in order to exert power, sell products, and persuade audiences. However, what may be more interesting are the similarities between Elbow and Bartholomae. Both see the importance of approaching writing as a process and carrying out a great deal of writing. Students also need to develop self-confidence in their critical thinking and writing processes; this empowers students to further develop their voice.

Hearing how Bartholomae’s ideas worked in relation to Elbow’s was important and very beneficial. Emily’s presentation helped to clarify the argument between these two scholars and to see how this debate has contributed to larger ideas of composition in the academic setting.

Bizzell Presentation

I definitely dig Patricia Bizzell. Culture is our key to connecting with students and getting them to think critically. It seems like there may be a connection to Graff here in the way Bizzell encourages the politicizing of texts. Again, it is the nature of conflict and differences of meaning and interpretation that enable dialogue and critical thinking. By bringing in the political aspect, the relationships of power can be explored, and students are challenged by opposing ideas. It is crucial for students to learn to take a position early on. When students learn to take a position, even with their own deep-seeded cultural beliefs, they are developing the “self-awareness” that Bizzell promotes.

Bizzell also suggests that students do not merely have a writing problem, they also have a thinking problem. The task of the instructor is to use the students’ culture as a tool to help engage students in critical thinking. When students begin to see the how they operate within their own culture and how this culture determines their thought process they can also begin to think critically about relationships to other, more diverse ideas and can begin to engage in dialogue within various academic discourse communities.

Graff Presentation

Conflict. If there is one word to sum up Gerald Graff and his ideas on composition, pedagogy, and thought, it has to be conflict. Graff employs words like “against,” “wars,” and “argumentation” to illustrate his assertion that differences of opinion are the starting point of academic discourse. Even Graff’s dissertation on poetry and objective reality centers on argumentation: he asserts that poetry is more similar to prose than most assume and that poetry makes claims and assumptions that hold objective truth and can be argued just like prose. Graff abandoned a strictly theoretical approach to focus more on pedagogical ideas, though he maintains his focus on conflict.

Graff’s promotes the idea that teachers must prepare students to enter the world of academic discourse. I like his ideas about “teaching the conflicts;” this is the way that scholars and audiences make meaning of texts. Nuanced interpretations of texts create subtle differences of meaning. Students need to first understand the scholarly vernacular being used, and if instructors need to “translate” it for them, then so be it. The essential thing is that students become familiar with the academic climate of debate and that they learn to develop their own voices within this culture.

Scott’s handouts were very helpful in understanding Graff’s arguments and how he relates to our other major theorists.

Murray Presentation

The notion that Murray focused mainly on influencing the curriculum and pedagogy of secondary education, must have been a result of the troubling experiences he, himself, had in high school. This is great because I know I see dozens of students on a daily basis whose needs aren’t met in secondary public schools.

Murray believed composition instruction should be both “product driven and process-oriented,” combining the ideas of Kinneavy(?) and Elbow. He further developed hese ideas in his pre-vision, vision, and revision strategies. I believe the most important thing a teacher can do for a student is to help him discover a vision. Teaching information or even skills is one thing, but if you can inspire and motivate a student by assisting them in realizing their vision, you have empowered them to continue learning and growing on their own.

The pre-vision signals were very interesting to me, and I’d like to learn more about some of them (news, line ?). Following surprise is also an interesting idea... I loved Tony’s approach to the presentation. He brought a lot of good energy and showed us this theorist’s ideas instead of just telling us.

Lunsford Presentation

It was refreshing to hear of another theorist (Elbow and Murray being others) who struggled to achieve her place in the field. Lunsford’s humility in addressing the challenges of “making it” in the world of academe is encouraging, because the pompousness of some of these other guys can be nauseating at times. Her ideas regarding collaboration are noteworthy. Her relationship with Lisa Ede and others shows that the result of consistently exposing yourself to differing view points (and even just different personalities) can be the impetus that inspires great work.

One of the interesting ideas associated with Lunsford is her focus on the absence of attention to memoria in rhetoric study since the introduction of print. I think Ong would be particularly interested in this too, seeing how this was the most essential aspect of the word in purely oral cultures. So, how does Memory factor into rhetoric when language is based mainly on the printed/electronic word? The only “memory” I can think of is on a USB drive, which simply gives the electronic word more agility and longevity.

Ong - Exploring Secondary Orality

The most interesting aspect of the Interface of the Word metaphor is the question mark at the end of the illustration. What is the future of the word? By labeling the advent of the “electronic word” secondary orality, Ong suggests that the visual will be dethroned by the oral. When we look at technology today the future is not completely clear; however, one thing is for certain: the word is expanding in new ways. Technology is transforming not only composition and education, but in a broader sense, it is changing the way society thinks.

Both visual and oral components are flourishing in the fields of composition, pedagogy, and communication. For example, the dominance of the visual word is still obvious in the record number of books that are published each year. Emails, blogging, text messaging, and web 2.0 have become dominant forms of communication. In addition, scholarly research may be done primarily through the computer today, but it still relies on text based information. The immense popularity of iTunes, the emergence of audiobooks, and the availability of lectures, speeches, and podcasts online has re-established the oral word as a major mode of cognition. While both oral and visual make strong independent claims for authority in language, the hybridization of the two may be the most interesting aspect yet. The use of webcams and video sharing (YouTube) cannot be overlooked. Combined oral and visual modes of communication are becoming some of the most commonly used forms of communication and are becoming much more important in tertiary education. (However, few secondary or primary schools actually fully utilize this technology.)

Regardless, Ong is right: this transformation of the word is changing the way that we think. Further evidence of the move from print to electronic culture can be seen in the radically changing newspaper industry. The demand for print editions of newspapers is quickly diminishing, so companies are turning to the web to deliver their information and opinions. We are now a society of excessive multitasking and rampant attention deficit disorder. We imbibe information in short bursts: we read a few lines here, watch a 50 second video clip there, and we’re set. I’m not criticizing this revolution in society, nor was Ong. It’s just fascinating to take a step back sometimes and look at how much the word (and world) is changing.

Ong on YouTube link

Thoughts on Elbow

Elbow’s idealism is attractive because he makes himself accessible and identifiable with the writing student. He uses his failures in writing to relate to the average, struggling composition student. The free writing ideas presented are helpful; it is encouraging to hear someone as influential as Elbow endorsing the idea of “mess-making.” The problem I see with my students though is that they often never bother cleaning up the mess. The question I had during Tim’s presentation concerned evaluation. Elbow claims to only give positive feedback, so my question is how do students improve their writing? The article provided some insight in this area: “I stress my own conviction that the goodness or badness in a piece of writing is an ‘unknown’ and that the only trustworthy measuring instrument we have is the reactions of as many real readers as possible” (594).

The importance of finding one’s voice and really coming into the ensuing “sincerity” in one’s writing was powerful for me. I now understand this to be the key to expressive writing. Expressivism has always been attractive for me, but understanding its potential contribution to all aspects of writing is immense.

Thoughts on Kinneavy

The religious influence on Kinneavy is of particular interest for me, for Catholicism also made a heavy impression on Walter Ong, the subject of my presentation. We see this with Elbow as well. In a way these authors seemed to look at composition as a spiritual act. Might the anxiety Kinneavy felt towards the transgressive aspects of literature be a result of his conservative social values?

It seems that Kinneavy, at least to some degree, deserves the acknowledgement he receives for his contributions to the field of composition and rhetoric. His ideas may be challenged, just as any other scholar, but the impact he made in helping to solidify a place for rhetoric in the college educational system is significant. I would like to read more of his work; the excerpts which Klayton provided for us were very intriguing. I’d like to find out more specifically about how his ideas in A Theory of Discourse have been used in composition instruction. Also, how and why did he have such a big impact on the standardized testing movement? To me this seems counteractive to the progress he was making in other areas of composition and rhetoric. His consideration of the implications of technology on composition is very important too. He was able to acknowledge the tremendous impact that technology has on language and communication.

Paul Kei Matsuda's "Process and Post-Process: A Discursive History"

Basically, this article looks at the name game of composition theory, especially regarding the process and post-process methods and how these terms, and the variety of ideas represented by them, apply to the field of L2 writing. Matsuda gives a solid review of the different approaches to grammar and composition theory in regard to L2 writing in the last 40 to 50 years. The current-traditional approach is well contrasted against the foundational ideas of the process movement. However, various scholars have challenged the labels given to certain ideas and have created new ones, attempting to redefine the boundaries of these approaches. For example, Faigley, Bizzell, and Berlin all, more or less, saw three philosophies represented in the process movement: expressive, cognitive, and social (72). The problem came when people like Trimbur decided that the social aspect should constitute its own movement, which he dubbed post-process (73). For me personally, I don’t see the big deal, and I feel Matsuda is leaning the same way. It doesn’t matter what you label it; the focus should be on the effectiveness of these practices and whether or not they are truly helping students become better writers. Matsuda’s ultimate purpose when discussing the post-process is “to show how such a term could mask the complexity of ideas to which it refers, and to caution against defining post-process as the complete rejection of all tenets of process pedagogy or theories” (78). Because Trimbur does not propose any new strategies, nor does he say anything really relevant, I see this as a moot point. Matsuda says “the post-process movement does not represent a unified theoretical front” (73). The main issue seems to be that different scholars rank the three process ideas in various degrees of importance, but these scholars are all still looking at the same ideas and simply putting brackets around the min different places.

There are critics like Kent who “construed ‘process’ as an attempt to develop ‘a generalized process or Big Theory’” (74). The author implies that Kent is misguided in this assertion, and rehashes the point that process writing is full of a “multiplicity of L2 writing theories and pedagogies” (65). I personally think the process approach has a great deal to offer in writing instruction. Acknowledging that students have something to say, helping them find their voice, encouraging creativity, reinforcing the revision process, and using student writing as a crucial text are all great ideas that can go a long way in improving students’ writing and potentially even their attitudes about writing.

McGee and Ericsson's "The Politics of the Program: Microsoft Word as the Invisible Grammarian"

I’ve never really thought about this issue, though now that I have, it seems rather significant. Typically, I try to teach grammar during the writing process, but I have not realized how much grammar “instruction” my students are already receiving through MSGC. The idea that “Microsoft gets more ‘teachable moments’ than English teachers do” is striking (455). Secondary English teachers typically have roughly an hour each day to spend working with their students, and because the topics that need to be covered include literature, writing instruction, vocabulary, and more, grammar instruction often receives limited attention.

McGee and Ericsson make some very insightful points, but what stands out to me the most is the seeming invisibility of the grammar checker. On the most recent versions many mistakes, like common spelling errors, are automatically made for the user. The authors also make the point that for many students, when they see the red or green squiggly line they just accept the first corrections without even acknowledging or considering the issue on hand (462). It seems that this technology, like many others, is enabling students and catering to their increasing laziness. One of the great things about technology is that it fosters convenience, but the danger is that dependence on it breeds stupidity.

The other important thing to realize is that MSGC is not may be “constraining the choices of the novice writer” (458). Students often use this technology and think that if they make all the corrections that they are prompted to, then they have a great paper. However, no consideration is given to voice, style or the ideas of the composition. McGee and Ericsson do not hide their contempt for MSGC, yet they show even more disdain for prescriptive grammar and the current traditional rhetoric. Unfortunately, students don’t know any better than to “accept the authority of this smart machine to police their grammar, just as they have heretofore accepted the authority of their smart teachers” (463). I don’t believe that a grammar checker is necessarily pure evil, but I do accept the authors’ charge that it is crucial to be more aware of this technology, that current best practice in writing and grammar is social, and that questioning this technology with students may be an effective teaching strategy.

Teaching Philosophy

Teachers of composition have gotten the shaft from the very early days of secondary and higher education in America. The primary focus for some time has been on syntax, structure, and the conventions of the English language. There have been voices since the beginning calling out for emancipation from this confining approach, but not enough to make a real change.
Composition instruction is currently the under-glorified workhorse of the English department.

Teachers receive little recognition next to their literature or theory based publishing counterparts. Different universities have different focuses when it comes to teaching writing, and Stewart identified three: Expressivism, Critical/Cultural Studies, and Procedural Rhetoric. The “current-traditional” rhetoric has come under fire by many, because of its focus on usage and formulaic structure. Fulkerson would agree with Stewart that “Composition has become much more complex” (679). The focus of English studies shifted in the 1990s according to Jeffrey Williams from criticism to theory. Now that theory has become the forefront of English studies, the field has become further disseminated, and composition remains in the shadows.

I believe the purpose of teaching should be to inspire, challenge, and equip a younger, rising generation. The greatest accomplishment that I can have as a teacher is to help students grow as critical thinkers and life-long learner. Learning is not the consumption and regurgitation of facts. Learning is about self-awareness – knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses and improving one’s self. Successful learning is when a student grasps a new concept or tool that enables him to have a deeper understanding of the world around him. I believe in guiding students, creating a positive and safe environment conducive to learning, modeling important behaviors, and teaching them tools that they can use independently in order to achieve success. Assessing student understanding is difficult. I currently use the standard grading system, but have often pondered other theories like pass/fail or even allowing students to grade themselves. I don’t like relying on the gradebook as much as I do, but with so many students I feel it is impossible (and unfair) to do otherwise.

Besides the development of critical thinking skills and a passion for life-long learning, my goal for my students is to help them become effective communicators and appreciators of culture. In writing instruction I try to incorporate elements of all of Stewart’s approaches to writing instruction. I believe that expressivist writing is very important for personal reflection and growth, cultural studies is important to get students thinking outside the box and challenging the power structures that have controlled their generation and those before. Though I am not a huge supporter of the current-traditional rhetoric, I still believe some instruction in usage and structure is necessary. I try to incorporate a variety of activities in class that address all of my students learning styles. I believe in fostering creativity and self-expression, but I also believe in the importance of discipline and fortitude. I lecture occasionally, but more often I try to equip students with effective strategies in reading and writing, model positive behavior and effective techniques, and challenge students o think independently and critically. I have been using technology more in my lessons and am trying to give students more problem based activities in which they have freedom in the responses. Technology is crucial because it students use it daily on heir own and mastery of it is quickly becoming a prerequisite in many fields.

I believe that one on one and small group interactions with students is absolutely essential. I believe that it is important to develop a connection with students and to build trust. When one has less than an hour each day to spend with a group of roughly thirty students, building a rapport can be extremely difficult. My vision of the ideal educational setting is this: first, the school day should be divided into two segments instead of approximately seven periods. One session should focus on the humanities: art, music, literature, history, communication (including writing and speech), even religion and philosophy, the other session should focus on math and the sciences. Because many of the topics overlap, they should be taught together and student interest should typically guide much of the instruction. In addition, learning should take place in small groups so that the instructor can be directly involved with education of each student.

My students journal a great deal and I try to incorporate a variety of strategies to stimulate and motivate them. For instance, I frequently use music as a tool. Every Friday we set aside some time to listen to, analyze, write on and discuss a different song. We have listened to a wide variety of genres and students help pick the music. I also like to give students group work in which they are required to research, collaborate, and present their findings to the class in creative ways. For example, before reading The Canterbury Tales, student groups researched various aspects of medieval society, organized their info, and on presentation day we had great food, costumes, hilarious videos, games, and even dancing!

Williams Article

“Packaging Theory” by Jeffrey Williams discusses the “flood of anthologies regarding literary theory in the 1990s. He claims that theory became the primary function at this time, replacing criticism as the primary focus of English studies. By publishing these anthologies the field is validating the once widely debated importance of theory and creating a new realm for study which secures the necessity of this department. In addition, marketing theory like this is a big time money-maker.

Williams takes issue with the two main ways in which these anthologies are composed: the hall-of-fame model and the movement model. The former organizes the anthology with lists of the all-stars of theory in the table of content, yet it fails to capture the real depth, growth, and development of theory over the years. The movement theory organizes the various subtopics within theory, but still fails to capture the interaction between subcategories and also neglects to acknowledge the minor contributing voices in the theoretical discourse.

Who’s to say who should be anthologized? Is it whoever gets published or cited the most? Everyone in academics is aligning themselves to prosper; they all attempt to validate and valorize themselves. Just like with literature, who has the privilege of composing the canon of theory? The flaw with having theory at the center of the field is that it is all based on speculation. What should be the focus of “English”?

It’s interesting that Williams claims to have “some ambivalence in the entrenchment of theory” because he has no problem throwing together an anthology of his own.

Sleeping through Schultz

Schultz article “Elaborating Our History: A Look at Mid-19th Century First Books of Composition” is painfully dull. In the article, she successfully demonstrated her knowledge of mid 1800s composition books, but left me wondering what her point was. She did a bunch of research and found some old and really obscure books on teaching writing. She then contrasts these texts to the more common composition books at the time. The difference between these two types of books is clear the entire time: the popular books, like John Walker’s The Teacher’s Assistant, were more rule-centered and asked students to memorize more than write while the more obscure books that Schultz looks at gave the students more opportunities for creativity and potentially even some preliminary critical thinking.

Schultz shows that Walker underestimated his students, and his three pedagogical tenets make this abundantly clear. He required students to follow strict rules and do an extensive amount of memorizing before they could even tough pen to paper. Morely and Frost, Schultz’s prized writers, prompt their students to just start writing basically and even challenge them to conduct research and observations on topics of interest to them.

An example of the “unconventional” practices of the texts explored by Schultz is the use of illustrations as writing prompts. This is actually mildly interesting. The most important difference though is that these latter authors encourage students to explore their on personal experiences, whereas Walker would never consider such a thing. It is also interesting to see that “Frost invites his students to reflect on their experience as a writer” (22). Practicing metacognition at this time had to be pretty rare it seems, so I give Frost credit.

I just feel that Schultz never made a strong or meaningful argument and that most of the article was extremely tedious and superfluous. She does have three conclusive points she argues at the end; however, these are completely uninteresting. I was just left wondering what the point of this was. How does this apply to modern pedagogical composition approaches? Is it just gaining a further historical perspective as Stewart argues? This is the one article that we read for this week that I feel I took nothing away from.

Fulkerson Article

Fulkerson argues in “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” that the approaches to composition theory are fractured and are continually becoming more frayed. In the article, he outlines three current theories: critical/cultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric (655), and in doing so, Fulkerson analyzes the evaluation, view of process, pedagogical ideology, and epistemology of each.

The focus of cultural studies is on the unbalanced and unjust power relationships between forces of domination and those of subjugation. The purpose is not only to represent the subaltern, but also for the writer to liberate himself from the dominant societal mindset. What I love about this approach is that instructors encourage students to challenge authority, to reflect on cultural differences, and to think critically. The criticism of this approach is that it doesn’t teach writing. But if this approach really can make strides in achieving a more socially just and harmonious country or even world, can one argue that “good” writing is more important? Another fear that arises with the CCS approach is one of indoctrination – will professors merely engrain in their students their own specific ideologies? I don’t think it has to be this way personally. Can’t one teach from a CCS approach and genuinely teach critical thinking at the same time ?

Expressivism, which apparently has been growing under the radar, is more focused on the “personal development” of the writer (667). Again, the focus is not on the writing process, but neither is it on critical thinking here: expressivism is about exploring one’s own thoughts and leaning about oneself. Personally, I think that there is definitely a place for this approach in education, yet I don not feel this should be the main strategy in teaching composition. This type of writing might inspire creativity, and it might be therapeutic, but I don’t think that this is the approach that serious academic scholarship needs. Fulkerson then brings up the debate about “process” writing versus “post-process” writing.

Finally, Fulkerson brings up the rhetorical approach to composition, yet he has divided this category into three distinct philosophies: “composition as argumentation, genre-based composition, and composition as introduction to an academic discourse community” (671). The argumentation approach is the idea that the purpose of a composition is to present and support an argument, the genre approach focuses on the “modes of discourse,” and the third approach, centering on discourse communities, focuses on training students to become a part of the academic community through instruction in language, composition, and research.

Fulkerson’s final conclusion, that “limiting students to understanding one dominant perspective disadvantages them. Programs will have to make serious choices and perhaps prepare students as utility players able to fit several positions,” is probably his most accurate statement of all (680).

Stewart Article

Donald Stewart makes two things clear right away: he believes in the “importance of historical knowledge for modern composition teachers” and that he abhors the use of a formulaic or “current-traditional rhetoric” approach to composition instruction.

So, “what is important in writing?” Stewart asks. Clearly, he does not believe that usage or the formulaic process are important. This approach is criticized for the fear that students and teachers who follow this approach will become drones, unable to construct independent and critical thoughts. He uses some powerful diction, calling the five-paragraph essay a “verbal straightjacket” (137). And the quotation from John Genung’s 1886 book is quite compelling: “This is evidently an unconscious surrender to the tyranny of a mental habit” (137). What I’m taking away from this section is that our academic institutions somehow got locked into this restrictive way of thinking about composition a long time ago and we haven’t been able to emancipate ourselves from it. Who decided what academic writing should look like? Why wasn’t the decision made a long time ago that creativity and expression were the most important aspects of writing? Maybe if this were the case we would have more poets writing beautiful lyrics than cynics penning tedious criticisms.

The Platonic idea that discourse should be a “living creature” suggests that composition is inflexible, and therefore, not as effective as speech/rhetoric. The implication here is that students need to learn how to formulate an argument and then be able to not only defend it, but also to subtly modify the arguments for various audiences.

George Hempel’s three points on the misconceptions of the English language were insightful to me. Why does the written word have more currency in our society than the spoken word? Who has the authority to determine the “rules” of our language and to say what “good” English is versus “bad” English? Language is an organic creature continuously morphing meanings, directions, purposes. Language should not be locked in a box. The descriptive approach to language here, one of non-judgmental empiricism seems like a much more pacifying approach, though what do you do with the findings? Should the development of language be observed just for observations sake, or can this be applied to writing in order to improve style or some other area?

One of the most intriguing ideas presented in the article was on the last page when Stewart brings up technology. It is interesting to think that this speech was originally composed over 25 years ago. This debate has definitely continued and he was right in that technology now plays a major factor in how we think about writing. With the recent technological gains, pretty much anyone in the world can display their thoughts to a wide, diverse, and global audience. These people do not need to be published anymore, they just need internet access. And though blogging and other new communicative alternatives may not be academic scholarship, these new approaches to composition and rhetoric need to be studied very closely because these genres are beginning to have more currency and a larger audience in our society than much current scholarship.

Popken Article

Popken set the tone for this article right from the start: “professionalism in composition valorizes scholarship and demeans teaching” (618). It is unfortunate, but that seems to be the bottom line of professional higher education; the old motto of “publish or perish” seems truer now than ever. This is a shame because there has been a shift in focus. Where the focus of education used to be student-centered, it is now self-centered. Many academic professors are only concerned with climbing the ladder and bringing more accolades upon themselves. I understand that research, publishing, and contributing to the academic discourses going on is essential, but is there any way to change this unbalanced problem that Popken brings up? With the massive amount of academic journals and essays and books being published, what’s the point? Only a handful of people ever read the majority of this stuff anyway. The quantity of publishing has increased drastically, and I feel the quality has had to decrease along with it. Most importantly is Horner’s idea of the “material social conditions” in academe. Shouldn’t the purpose of an academic institution be to educate students? I know that sounds obvious, but clearly something’s not right.

Edwin Hopkins left me bewildered. On the one hand, you have to admire his dedication to his profession. This guy was completely sold out to teaching and helping improve his students’ writing, which is great. But on the other hand, I feel he needed to get a life. Popken says, “his devotion to duty is so great in fact that he tells Strong he is willing to risk his health—and even his life—for it” (622). I mean come on. Who in their right mind would risk their life to grade a few extra freshman compositions? I love teaching, and I can’t think of another profession I would enjoy more, but there are still a few things in my life that absolutely take priority over grading papers. I’m glad that he initiated a change at Kansas, but it’s disappointing that we haven’t taken away more from this man.

I also agree with the assertion that the heavy work load imposed upon teachers of composition deteriorates the quality of their teaching. You can only expect so much from these individuals, and to put the onus of critiquing papers and helping students improve their writing on top of teaching, lecturing, and preparing for classes is unreasonable. It is sad that those who work the hardest often receive the least recognition for their efforts. The quality of education should be the top priority of our academic institutions, but unfortunately we live in a society were wealth and status often take precedent over all else.

Bishop Article

Bishop discusses the problem of fatigue and burnout among instructors of rhetoric and composition while juxtaposing this issue with the passion and enjoyment felt in early exploration of the field.

I feel that I can definitely relate to Bishop’s ideas here. I mean, when I first started out as an undergrad, I had no idea what field or profession I wanted to pursue. I had a few interests, but no direction. I started of as a communications major, but that didn’t last long. After taking two gen ed level literature courses with two young energetic male professors (something which I hadn’t had in my secondary education) I found I was being stimulated by literature, something that hadn’t taken place in my life for a long time. I switched my major then to English Education with the intent of inspiring other young people to develop a passion for literature and language. Further positive experiences in literature, linguistics, and pedagogical courses solidified my love for the broadly defined field of “English.”

I loved the insert by Burke about joining the theory debate far too late, contributing a little, and then realizing that the discussion will continue on for a long time without you. I wasn’t exposed to a great deal of theory in my undergrad courses so when I started this program two years ago and this new language was being thrown around everywhere, I felt completely lost. I kept thinking, “What did I miss and how do I catch up?” One of the ideas that Bishop brings up is that today it is basically impossible to always stay completely current in the field. Though frustrating, it is also kind of a relief: knowing that you can only do so much. I have struggled with attempting to balance my personal interests and passion in the field with studying what I feel a have to learn in order to be more able to contribute to the discourse.

Bishop’s points on burnout were interesting for me too. I am early on in my professional career, this being just my third year teaching, so I haven’t felt the boredom from years of research, instruction, and grading that she speaks of, but I have definitely felt the exhaustion that comes with combining the frustrations and workload of your early teaching years and the intensity of graduate level work.

I continue to consider the possibility of pursuing a doctorate at some point and working in the higher academic field, but for now, I just want to finish up this MA program and enjoy some time improving myself professionally and privately independently. The big dilemma for me is that I will be a father soon, and the thought of being the dad at the soccer game grading papers horrifies me.

The fact that this composition was intended for the audience of the CCCC makes the ending of the piece more understandable; however, the feeling that her main intention was to improve the numbers for CCCC membership was a little disappointing and slightly sullied some of her earlier ideas.

Why Comp Theory?

Why am I here?

I believe this course will provide valuable insight into modern academic scholarship in composition and rhetorical theory. Like most aspects of our rapidly changing world, academe has embraced technology and is moving faster than ever. Research is being completed by a growing number of scholars at an increasingly rapid pace, and the work is all being done online now. I look forward to using more technology this semester and blogging for the first time.

Rhetoric is the employment of specifically chosen symbols with the purpose of achieving a certain aim within a power relationship. Composition is the physical construction of words and thoughts in order to communicate ideas with others. The number of genres which now carry the moniker "composition" continues to multiply. Each genre lends itself to a different function though: some are academic, while others are purely social, some are formal, others informal, etc. Regardless of the specific function, the purpose of all composition is to communicate ideas. One expectation of mine is that we will study some of the various approaches to writing instruction in addition to effective strategies in communication and persuasion through writing.

Though this course is required, I feel it is critical for graduate (and undergraduate) students to be cognizent of the theories and ideas that shape the academic world, and therefore, their own educational experiences. As graduate students we are near the source of this fast paced world of scholarship, and it is necessary that we both study and participate in the discourse taking place.