Basic Writing Pedagogy

Throughout the Mutnic article, I felt the tension of the debates over Open Admissions, basic writing, freshman composition courses, and "tracking" at the college as well as secondary levels. While these debates are seemingly endless and do not have a solution that will satisfy one and all, I found myself searching for answers. My thought process lead me to a reflection on the issue of responsibility, and the idea that universities as institutions and individual teachers may have different responsibilities in regard to the above mentioned debates. It seems logical that if a university is going to offer Open Admissions, then the university also needs to offer basic writing and other remedial courses that are appropriate for the incoming student body. I suppose, all universities are responsible for providing courses appropriate for their incoming student body. This idea applies to Open Admission schools as well as more selective schools. My brother attends Georgia Tech and takes math classes I've never heard of, but this is appropriate for a school offering one of the top math programs in the country. So, it seems slightly elementary to concede that the policy of Open vs. selective admissions and thereby the curriculum is the responsibility of the university, but it seems to make sense.

The individual teacher has a different responsibility: to teach the kids in his/her class. Regardless of whatever the admission policy may be or the remedial or rigorous curriculum offered, students will vary in levels of preparedness. Teachers must teach the students they have. Although, it is not quite that simple. There is obvious strain between expectations and reality, but these issues are why I love teaching. I often have friends ask me if it gets boring teaching the same subject over and over (I teach at the high school level, but it is admitted that college level teachers often have more variety in what classes they teach). I always answer that it is never boring because although the material I teach in US History seldom changes, the kids are never the same. There are always unique faces, stories, and challenges.

However, I am well aware of the potential influence of individual professors on university-wide decisions. I do not mean to imply that teachers should not try to influence larger decisions made by thier institutions. My point is that my classroom is where I can make the greatest difference. Whatever my beliefs on certain debates, I can try to influence my school one way or another, but ultimately my greatest influence will be on the individual students in my classroom.

Service Learning Pedagogy

In digesting Julier's essay , I found myself both draw to and fearful of service learning pedagogy. I am drawn to it because it not only provides opportunities for students to improve their writing skills but also encourages them to be socially aware. I was at first skeptical of how a student's writing skill could improve from writing pamphlets or public announcements for various non-profit organizations, but Julier made a great point. In order to write for an organization, the student must research it and be sure what and how to write. This exercise forces the writer to be very aware of their voice and can even allow for a writer to take on a different voice, if the voice of the organization is different from the writer herself. Also, these service learning projects require writers to be keenly aware of their audience. I think this is extremely beneficial to young writers, as audience awareness is often one of their greatest struggles.

However, I do have some reservations about service learning pedagogy. I feel it is imperative to allow choice for students in regard to service learning projects. If a professor requires students to work with a certain organization or limits the students' options of organizations, I think this type of pedagogy can boarder on teachers using the classroom as a soapbox to promote their own activism and political views. As long as students are being encouraged to become socially aware and not forced toward one political spectrum or the other, I think that service learning pedagogy can provide unique benefits to students.

Technology and the Teaching of Writing

Each of the assigned readings address different aspects of the intersection between technology and the teaching of writing. First, Moran gives a broad (and now slightly outdated) overview of the effects of technology on teaching writing. He recognizes that the internet and online activities, including email and discussion boards, are often perceived as less formal environments, which can be both beneficial and detrimental to assignments. The benefits include potentially empowering students who feel uncomfortable contributing to in-class, verbal discussion, and also by having written discussions, the students do more writing. However, the informal nature of online exchanges can also quickly veer off topic and can be difficult for the instructor to guide. While I found some of Moran's conclusions, specifically about the $13,000 cost of a personal computer, to be outdated, I did agree with his point about online discussions being more useful to writing teachers. In a History pedagogy course, I have argued against the use of online discussion because it does not force students to engage in real-time, verbal discussions, but in the case of a writing course, it seems that such a discussion format would be more beneficial to students.

I found Purdy's exploration of plagiarism and how it is influenced by technology to be extremely thought provoking. I think we, as teachers, need to be clear about what we want students to learn in general but also in regard to plagiarism. Do we want them to know not to turn in an assignment from a paper mill? Do we want them to know how to research and cite properly? Do we want them to live in fear of being caught for plagiarism? Perhaps, one or all three. I think it will vary with the teacher. In my own classroom, I'd like for the students to understand what plagiarism is (although I know that is a slippery slope) and why they should avoid it. I have found that most of the time, identifying a plagiarized paper is not too difficult, especially if the teacher is familiar with his/her students' writing. So, it seems that catching and punishing students who plagiarize is not what is difficult. Prevention of plagiarism seems to be the issue. Another professor I've had, Denis Gainty, has described the process and benefits of creating an undetectable plagiarized paper as akin to producing a perfectly counterfeited one dollar bill. All that effort for very little benefit. It would be my hope that students would come to understand the wasted effort of "good" or undetectable plagiarism; however, this may be idealistic. Also, I was intrigued by Purdy's exploration of "competitive" vs. "institutionalized" plagiarism; however, I ultimately felt that the two are not the same in that the student operates in a different environment than the professional, and these environments have different rules. In the classroom, the expectation on students in one that requires the work of the individual. I think the professional world is much more centered around collaborative work and writing.

I found Krause's blogging horror story to be interesting, especially considering the nature of assignments in this course. I must agree with his final conclusion that blogs are not naturally collaborative. Even with the comment feature, a blog is still the production of an individual, even if you have a group of people working on the composition. Discussion is difficult with blogs and much more suited for online discussion boards.

Writing Across the Curriculum

The writing across the Curriculum hybrid of writing to learn and writing to understand seems like it would help students view writing as a life skill. I think journal assignments provide a great opportunity for kids to experience writing as an aid in thought processing. Although I think from a pedagogical standpoint, it can be difficult to grade journals and may be equally problematic not assigning any grade to journal writing, I still think the practice is valuable for students.
I liked the point McLeod made about audience awareness in regard to writing to understand. While sit is an accomplishment for students to be able to express themselves (as with writing to learn), I think teaching students to use writing as a form of communication will help them be more clear and confident writers. As McLeod points out, audience awareness is key in this task.
It seems that writing across the curriculum seeks to teach some basic principles of writing and urges writing to be viewed as a life skill more than a task in a composition course. I think such a pedagogy is useful in freeing students from their fear of writing.

Visual Rhetoric

In teaching AP US History to 10th graders last year, I often found my students tiring of lectures and notetaking. In order to bring some variety to the classroom, I decided to incoporate one of my favorite historical primary documents: political cartoons. In doing so, I realized that in showing political cartoons and asking my students to analyze them I had stumble upon a way to encourage critical thinking. Now having read these essays, I see that I had also incorporated a form of visual rhetoric.

Until this class, the evolving visual nature of composition (and pop culuture in general) has not really occured to me. The visual nature of pop culture and also composition must warrant some devotion of classtime. For example, what does the design of my blog say about the what I am posting here? Afterall, I chose it for a reason, even if it was subconscious. What does visual rhetoric add to the field of composition? There is much more to be considered besides the words on the page. In one sense, I find it exciting, but also daunting.

Feminist Pedagogy

I'm not sure how I would utilize feminist pedagogy in the classroom outside of attempting to create a more egalitarian classroom environment. It's not that I think that feminist pedagogy has no place in the composition classroom, but I feel that it may not be applicable in the 1101 or 1102 setting. At least, not on a grand scale.

However, I did connect with the Skorczewski article. From my experience as both a teacher and a coach at the secondary level, I think that learning to be yourself in front of your class or team is possibly the most important preparation for teaching or coaching or probably for any leadership position. I think we can forget how perceptive people, especially young people, can be. I have noticed, and it may just be my personality, that there is a great tendency in teachers and coaches to try to replicate the styles or personas of other successful teachers and coaches. However, if the persona you are presenting is not really you, you will be uncomfortable (unless you are a talented actor, I suppose), and the kids will sense this very quickly. Again, my experience is only at the secondary level, but I think kids, and also probably adults, gravitate toward confidence in leadership. Confidence, however, does not have to equate to authoritativeness. I have found that students are usually willing to listen and listen best when you are comfortable and confident with the way you are presenting yourself and the material.

Critical Pedagogy

It is interesting to consider whether education is truly a liberator or an assembly line like tool of the dominant classes. To be honest, I usually feel like the latter is a bit of a conspiracy theory that I've never been wholly convinced of because it feels a like to Matrix-esque for me. However, it is certainly a critique of our education system worth considering. Being a part of the American education system, on the secondary level, I do not concede entirely to the idea of education as an "invisible" tool of the dominant classes; however, the fact that I do work within private schools is evidence of my frustration with the public school system.

Teaching students to question existing systems, assumptions, and perceived realities is an important piece of education as liberation. However, from a practical perspective, I'm not sure how critical pedagogy would fit into an entry (freshman) level composition class. It seems that our struggle as composition teachers would be even more basic than student awareness of the "invisible" superstructures in the world around them. It seems that students need to be able to express themselves effectively in writing before being challenged with questioning or critiquing society. However, maybe my understanding of the practical implications of critical pedagogy are shallow or my expectations of freshman writers are too limiting.

As an aside, I'm not comfortable in the least with professors using classrooms as soap boxes for a specific political agenda. There is a stark contrast between faciliating discussions about what social injustices or "invisible" social and cultural superstructures may exist and a professor telling students what to think about such issues.

Cultural Studies and Composition

The relationship between Cultural Studies and Composition is clearly a hotly debated topic, and frankly, makes me a little nervous. I found myself agreeing pretty strongly with Hairston's critque. It seems that the debate centers around the question of what is the goal of a Composition course? The simple answer seems to be to teach students how to write well (well meaning any variety of other adjectives/adverbs: clearly, well organized, thoughtfully, etc). I cannot understand how political or social activisim fits in with this goal.

The main reason the connection between politics, specifically a certain stance within politics, and the teaching of composition makes me nervous is because it can breech on an abuse of power. Part of teaching composition seems to be teaching how to think, or at least how to express one's thoughts so that another may understand them. Mixing in a political agenda would seem to change the outcome from teaching students how to think to teaching them what to think. Aside from the potential ethical issues with this situtation, I know from experience that this is a great way to turn off many students.

I can recall as an undergraduate (and even at times now as a Graduate student) being so irritated at a professor for using his/her classroom as a political soapbox. Regardless of the slant, I found it offensive and ultimately lost respect for the professor and the course. I think that recognizing and grappling with difficult or even uncomfortable cultural, historical, and political issues can be good exercises within a class. However, doing so with a specific political agenda seems flat out unethical. There is a difference between admitting biases as a professor (and a human being) and using the fact that bias is inevitable as an excuse to promote a specific political agenda. There is merit to admitting bias but still attempting to be fair in the presentation of material and topics.

Rhetorical Pedagogy Response

"Do I know what rhetorical means?" - Homer J Simpson (I must admit this quote was the first thing I thought of when I saw we were studying rhetorical pedagogy)

I've always thought that rhetoric is the study or mastery of the spoken word, specifically in regard to argument. It seems that I am not far off from the classical definition of the word. Within the readings, I was intrigued with Booth's concept of balance. I specifically liked how he draws a connection between the classical and modern conceptions of rhetoric in writing about a writer's voice. Near the end of his essay he writes, "What makes the rhetoric of Milton and Burke and Churchill great is that each presents us with the spectacle of a man passionately involved in thinking an important question through, in the company of an audience" (170). A writer's mastery of his or her own voice seems to directly correlate to his or her own mastery in writing. By mastery in writing, I mostly mean being comfortable with and not intimidated by writing. Giving structure and encouraging expression seems to be a good combination of pedagogical approaches to writing.

Expressive Pedagogy Response

Throughout the readings over expressive pedagogy, I kept returning to the idea of audience. Elbow's idea that disregarding audience would lead to better writing in which the writer has a clearer, more authoritative voice, intrigued me. Reflecting on the many academic papers I've written for various classes in high school, undergraduate, and graduate school, I seldom recall considering audience (except for my one creative writing class where I was convinced my professor hated me, but that would lead me off into a tangent). However, I think I considered audience subconsciously. My writing within this blog is very different from my writing for my history research papers, and yet is different from my writing in my journal, and is different also in the thank you note I just wrote to my Grandpa. How does my writing differ? Most clearly in two ways: how honestly and unabashedly I express myself and how much attention I pay to grammar. My journal is certainly more revealing than my research paper, but is it more expressive? I think the answer to that question revolves around another question: what am I trying to accomplish with my writing?

Of course, the answer is different in each scenario mentioned above. Within my journal, I'm mostly trying to express myself, record events, and allow my brain to process events and thoughts through writing them on the page. I feel successful at some times more than others; however, I do not know how much this has much to do with consideration of audience. The audience of my journal is me, or my future self, I suppose.

For more public writing, papers and thank you notes, I have specific goals that mostly involve communicating my thoughts and feelings to an outside audience. Now being probably the first time I've really thought about my consideration of audience, I'm fairly certain it's subconscious (for me). However, I'm not sure that being aware of my audience makes me less expressive or effective in my writing. If my goal is to communicate to my professor or my Grandpa, how could I be more effective in doing so if I disregarded them?

I think that while some have to be encouraged to consider audience, it would be an interesting exercise for me to intentionally disregard audience. I do not know if I could. In just thinking about it, it seems that I would revert to my journal writing style. Would that be better or more expressive? I suppose I would have to try to find out.