What exactly should be taught in composition. In your opinion, how should it be taught, and what should you do in order to know if what was taught was learned?
OK. I am going to go for a rather idealistic answer here. I will assume that students come into the class with a reasonable command of grammar and usage. And that they know how to use basic tools like a word processor, email, etc.
By the end of a composition class, students should understand the elements of the rhetorical situation and how rhetoric creates meaning, and they should be able to demonstrate this understanding in their own writing. I usually start by focusing on the writer, assigning a narrative piece. Even then, students should begin to get an idea of how the purpose and audience should inform the organization of the message. Other assignments may involve purposes such as description, comparison, or argumentation, in each case focusing on how the elements of the rhetorical situation interact. I really like Corbett's diagram as a model of dynamic balance.
A major goal is to help students understand what counts as evidence (or, to put it in an ethical context, "good reasons") in a particular rhetorical situation. To me, this is what critical thinking boils down to: evaluating evidence in a particular context. The best way I have found to teach this is to choose a particular theme for the course and have students read a variety of texts related to the theme: narratives, arguments, and expository pieces. In each case, students will respond to these pieces with respect to how well the evidence fits the rhetorical situation. In class, students usually share their observations in small-group discussions and then present their findings to the class. In such a way, students begin to understand what counts as "good reasons"; ideally, by the end of the semester, they will be able to choose evidence carefully and present it effectively in their own writing.
As far as assessment, I have been evaluating individual assignments. I have been shifting away from focusing on surface errors and moving toward holistic grading based on rhetorical effectiveness. In some assignments, I may focus on specific aspects of the rhetorical situation: audience awareness, writer's voice, evidence, etc. I like the idea of moving to a portfolio assignment, which would represent the culmination of the student's understanding of the rhetorical situation. By choosing appropriate evidence (specific assignments), students would demonstrate to the audience (me) that the purpose of the class (understanding the rhetorical situation) had been achieved.
Beyond the composition classroom, transfer of knowledge is a big concern. The goal is for students to be able to transfer the rhetorical skills learned to other classes and to life experiences. Personally, I find it somewhat mysterious that some students seem to "get it" and others don't. That is, some students seem to be able to take what is learned in one situation and, recognizing the similarities and differences, apply it to a novel situation. I think part of this ability comes with life experience. But part of it comes with explicit practice in recognizing patterns and responding appropriately. I think Smit's advice of choosing a specific context that students can relate to and care about, and having them write to achieve specific purposes within that context, is likely to result in accelerated pattern recognition ability and better transfer of rhetorical skills.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
What are the core movements in the history of composition (as summarized by Berlin and Fulkerson), and which elements of each can you relate to in your own teaching philosophy?
Reading Berlin and Fulkerson has really forced me to take a more systematic look at where my teaching is coming from. Perhaps like many of us, I had no formal training in pedagogy or composition before I started teaching Freshman Comp and Business Writing four years ago. On the writing side, I had 13 years experience as a tech writer, manager, and trainer, so I had a pretty clear idea about what post-academic writing entailed. On the academic side, I had a pretty strong background in literary criticism, philosophy, anthropology, and technical communication; the epistemological concepts that Berlin and Fulkerson address were certainly not foreign, though I hadn't encountered them with regard to composition theory before. To think that I approached designing my writing classes with a clear eye to both theory and practice would be giving me way more credit than I deserve, however. Working within constraints imposed by the department and the Georgia Board of Regents, I cobbled together a syllabus based on sample syllabi and my own ideas regarding what a student should learn in Freshman Comp. And while I have tweaked the syllabus a bit over the semesters, my approach has not changed all that much. I tend to focus on critical thinking (or at least a start in that direction), an understanding of the rhetorical situation, and, more recently, community and collaboration. I don't tend to take up a lot of class time focusing on error, although I do spend at least one class focusing on the errors most likely to destroy the academic writer's credibility. (Of course, I spend as much time as I can working with individual students on "correctness" issues when they ask for my help.) It's tempting to rely on formalist criteria in grading student writing, but over time, my evaluation has taken a strongly rhetorical turn. As far as expressivism goes, I don't specifically assign any freewriting, although I do mention it as a means to overcome resistance (to assigments, authority, the idea that "writing sucks!", etc.). I often assign journals or reading responses, but I do so in service of "mimetic" goals--to ensure that students are engaging the texts in a critical, reflective way--rather than out of any belief in expressivism as a higher good. The predominant focus of my classes is rhetoric--helping students understand the rhetorical situation and helping them shape their writing to meet the demands of the rhetorical situation. While Fulkerson characterizes the rhetorical stance as focusing on the reader, I tend to emphasize the dynamic balance among all the elements of the situation: writer, purpose, message and audience. So I guess I fit fairly strongly in the rhetorical camp, but I do recognize the value of each of Fulkerson's positions to meet certain goals. I hope I am not sending "mixed signals" to my students, but I know that some of my assignments have either not been specified precisely or not been evaluated as "cleanly" as they could have been. If nothing else, Fulkerson's article has made me even more aware of the need to carefully consider my means and my ends, and to be able to justify both.
Moving on to Berlin's examination of epistemology, I fit fairly firmly within the New Rhetoric school. This passage pretty much sums up my philosophy: "... the message arises out of the interaction of the writer, language, reality, and the audience. Truths are operative only within a given universe of discourse, and this universe is shaped by all of these elements, including the audience" (563). Looking back on my teaching experience, I find that I have too often tried to use the tools of Current-Traditional rhetoric to achieve the ends of New Rhetoric. I have already started to move more toward a community-defined model of making meaning through rhetoric, and articles like Berlin's can help me shore up the theoretical underpinnings of my pedagogical choices. The question remains as to whether basing my teaching philosophy on a epistemology that denies the existence of objective "truths" is fair to students who may feel quite differently, who might hold very absolutist beliefs about the nature of truth. I maintain that to do otherwise, to pretend to positivist, or Aristotelian, or Platonic notions of truth, would not only be intellectually dishonest; it would also disadvantage students by denying them exposure to the habits of thinking and communicating necessary in a post post-modern world.
Reading Berlin and Fulkerson has really forced me to take a more systematic look at where my teaching is coming from. Perhaps like many of us, I had no formal training in pedagogy or composition before I started teaching Freshman Comp and Business Writing four years ago. On the writing side, I had 13 years experience as a tech writer, manager, and trainer, so I had a pretty clear idea about what post-academic writing entailed. On the academic side, I had a pretty strong background in literary criticism, philosophy, anthropology, and technical communication; the epistemological concepts that Berlin and Fulkerson address were certainly not foreign, though I hadn't encountered them with regard to composition theory before. To think that I approached designing my writing classes with a clear eye to both theory and practice would be giving me way more credit than I deserve, however. Working within constraints imposed by the department and the Georgia Board of Regents, I cobbled together a syllabus based on sample syllabi and my own ideas regarding what a student should learn in Freshman Comp. And while I have tweaked the syllabus a bit over the semesters, my approach has not changed all that much. I tend to focus on critical thinking (or at least a start in that direction), an understanding of the rhetorical situation, and, more recently, community and collaboration. I don't tend to take up a lot of class time focusing on error, although I do spend at least one class focusing on the errors most likely to destroy the academic writer's credibility. (Of course, I spend as much time as I can working with individual students on "correctness" issues when they ask for my help.) It's tempting to rely on formalist criteria in grading student writing, but over time, my evaluation has taken a strongly rhetorical turn. As far as expressivism goes, I don't specifically assign any freewriting, although I do mention it as a means to overcome resistance (to assigments, authority, the idea that "writing sucks!", etc.). I often assign journals or reading responses, but I do so in service of "mimetic" goals--to ensure that students are engaging the texts in a critical, reflective way--rather than out of any belief in expressivism as a higher good. The predominant focus of my classes is rhetoric--helping students understand the rhetorical situation and helping them shape their writing to meet the demands of the rhetorical situation. While Fulkerson characterizes the rhetorical stance as focusing on the reader, I tend to emphasize the dynamic balance among all the elements of the situation: writer, purpose, message and audience. So I guess I fit fairly strongly in the rhetorical camp, but I do recognize the value of each of Fulkerson's positions to meet certain goals. I hope I am not sending "mixed signals" to my students, but I know that some of my assignments have either not been specified precisely or not been evaluated as "cleanly" as they could have been. If nothing else, Fulkerson's article has made me even more aware of the need to carefully consider my means and my ends, and to be able to justify both.
Moving on to Berlin's examination of epistemology, I fit fairly firmly within the New Rhetoric school. This passage pretty much sums up my philosophy: "... the message arises out of the interaction of the writer, language, reality, and the audience. Truths are operative only within a given universe of discourse, and this universe is shaped by all of these elements, including the audience" (563). Looking back on my teaching experience, I find that I have too often tried to use the tools of Current-Traditional rhetoric to achieve the ends of New Rhetoric. I have already started to move more toward a community-defined model of making meaning through rhetoric, and articles like Berlin's can help me shore up the theoretical underpinnings of my pedagogical choices. The question remains as to whether basing my teaching philosophy on a epistemology that denies the existence of objective "truths" is fair to students who may feel quite differently, who might hold very absolutist beliefs about the nature of truth. I maintain that to do otherwise, to pretend to positivist, or Aristotelian, or Platonic notions of truth, would not only be intellectually dishonest; it would also disadvantage students by denying them exposure to the habits of thinking and communicating necessary in a post post-modern world.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Push and Pull
The cost of technology can be daunting, but the value in savings over the long run can be staggering. Teachers are perhaps better as facilitators rather than sage on the stage (in my words; Anson might disagree with this). DE offers inter-institutional opportunities.
Let's tackle the "sage on the stage" metaphor first. I am probably a bit naive, but I find it hard to believe that anyone teaching Freshman Comp uses the pure lecture model anymore. So I have been wondering what the current equivalent to the "sage on the stage" model is for Freshman Comp. I really liked Lennie's "push vs. pull" terminology that we started talking about at the end of class. In these terms, I think the equivalent to the "sage on the stage" is the instructor who is all "push." Even if the instructor is enlightened in terms of pedagogy (for example, lots of freewriting, workshopping, peer review, etc.), if the instructor is deciding unilaterally what (and how) the students need to be taught, then many of the students will have less than an ideal learning experience. To learn to be better writers (and I am not arguing that Freshman Comp is only about that), students need to be able to "pull" the information they are lacking from whatever resource is most useful. It may be the instructor, or it may be a writing center, Web site, other students, or just about any other source. Effective instructors need to set up an environment in which the "pushing" is limited to the things that all students absolutely must know (learning outcomes translated into specific measurement criteria, shared terminology, theory, specific technical skills, etc.) or respond to (model artifacts, etc.) and "pulling" is facilitated in ways that serve all students regardless of learning style. I think setting up such a learning environment is probably easier now than ever before. One is not limited by the parameters of the physical classroom, the class meeting time, or even office hours. As to whether or not (or to what extent) Comp instructors should be teaching technology, I think it will vary depending on the environment in which the learning will take place. Certainly, training in required skills (blogging, using WebCT, or whatever) must be made easily available, either in class or through some other channel. However, unless the learning outcomes are specifically tied to learning particular "tools", then I don't think such instruction should make up a significant portion of the "pushed" material.
This may be a bit off topic, but I wonder a lot about who should determine the learning outcomes for Freshman Comp. Ideally, these outcomes should be a negotiated contract between administrators, teachers, and students. Most of us don't live in that world yet, so we are forced to balance system/university/college/department requirements with our own teaching philosophies (hopefully informed by a reasonable understanding of our students' needs). Most of us are part of English departments (either currently or historically), so I suspect that most of us consider writing an important skill. Also, Freshman Comp is a service course, which means we must meet the requirements of other departments: to produce students capable of writing coherent papers in other disciplines. With respect to our students' needs, we recognize that they will need to be able to communication effectively in whatever endeavors they choose to pursue after college. But will they all need to be able to write, at least in the ways that we traditionally conceive of writing in Freshman Comp? That is, will they need to write arguments, expository prose, and narratives? Or will they be more likely to express themselves in multimedia: video, podcasts, Websites, and the like? What is the common ground among all those modes of communication? Isn't that what we should be teaching instead of focusing on specific writing genres? I think the ability to develop and apply critical thinking skills is the foundation for being able to communicate thoughtfully and effectively. As to whether one can directly "teach" critical thinking, I am not sure. However, I think much of the content we "push" to our students should be things that promote critical thinking: writing, video, audio and multimedia "models" (supplanted with theory, when necessary) that force students to grapple with logic, evidence, rhetoric, bias, etc. In turn, we should ask them to demonstrate their ability to communication their engagement with these ideas in whatever form fits the rhetorical situation, with an eye to as much variety possible given the external constraints listed above. As to "training" the students to perform these communicative acts, I think we should rely on the "pull" model as much as possible. As to the economic part of the equation, I imagine the actual ROI is beyond my ability to calculate, but any investment in technology that will facilitate a balance between push and pull that will likely result in significantly improved learning outcomes (and, hopefully, increased student and faculty satisfaction) is money well spent.
Let's tackle the "sage on the stage" metaphor first. I am probably a bit naive, but I find it hard to believe that anyone teaching Freshman Comp uses the pure lecture model anymore. So I have been wondering what the current equivalent to the "sage on the stage" model is for Freshman Comp. I really liked Lennie's "push vs. pull" terminology that we started talking about at the end of class. In these terms, I think the equivalent to the "sage on the stage" is the instructor who is all "push." Even if the instructor is enlightened in terms of pedagogy (for example, lots of freewriting, workshopping, peer review, etc.), if the instructor is deciding unilaterally what (and how) the students need to be taught, then many of the students will have less than an ideal learning experience. To learn to be better writers (and I am not arguing that Freshman Comp is only about that), students need to be able to "pull" the information they are lacking from whatever resource is most useful. It may be the instructor, or it may be a writing center, Web site, other students, or just about any other source. Effective instructors need to set up an environment in which the "pushing" is limited to the things that all students absolutely must know (learning outcomes translated into specific measurement criteria, shared terminology, theory, specific technical skills, etc.) or respond to (model artifacts, etc.) and "pulling" is facilitated in ways that serve all students regardless of learning style. I think setting up such a learning environment is probably easier now than ever before. One is not limited by the parameters of the physical classroom, the class meeting time, or even office hours. As to whether or not (or to what extent) Comp instructors should be teaching technology, I think it will vary depending on the environment in which the learning will take place. Certainly, training in required skills (blogging, using WebCT, or whatever) must be made easily available, either in class or through some other channel. However, unless the learning outcomes are specifically tied to learning particular "tools", then I don't think such instruction should make up a significant portion of the "pushed" material.
This may be a bit off topic, but I wonder a lot about who should determine the learning outcomes for Freshman Comp. Ideally, these outcomes should be a negotiated contract between administrators, teachers, and students. Most of us don't live in that world yet, so we are forced to balance system/university/college/department requirements with our own teaching philosophies (hopefully informed by a reasonable understanding of our students' needs). Most of us are part of English departments (either currently or historically), so I suspect that most of us consider writing an important skill. Also, Freshman Comp is a service course, which means we must meet the requirements of other departments: to produce students capable of writing coherent papers in other disciplines. With respect to our students' needs, we recognize that they will need to be able to communication effectively in whatever endeavors they choose to pursue after college. But will they all need to be able to write, at least in the ways that we traditionally conceive of writing in Freshman Comp? That is, will they need to write arguments, expository prose, and narratives? Or will they be more likely to express themselves in multimedia: video, podcasts, Websites, and the like? What is the common ground among all those modes of communication? Isn't that what we should be teaching instead of focusing on specific writing genres? I think the ability to develop and apply critical thinking skills is the foundation for being able to communicate thoughtfully and effectively. As to whether one can directly "teach" critical thinking, I am not sure. However, I think much of the content we "push" to our students should be things that promote critical thinking: writing, video, audio and multimedia "models" (supplanted with theory, when necessary) that force students to grapple with logic, evidence, rhetoric, bias, etc. In turn, we should ask them to demonstrate their ability to communication their engagement with these ideas in whatever form fits the rhetorical situation, with an eye to as much variety possible given the external constraints listed above. As to "training" the students to perform these communicative acts, I think we should rely on the "pull" model as much as possible. As to the economic part of the equation, I imagine the actual ROI is beyond my ability to calculate, but any investment in technology that will facilitate a balance between push and pull that will likely result in significantly improved learning outcomes (and, hopefully, increased student and faculty satisfaction) is money well spent.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Three Key Concepts
Topic: What are the three most important concepts in composition would you say? These concepts might play a role in your teaching philosophy, so you might think of this question as what are the three most important beliefs about your own teaching do you have?
I've been struggling with this question all week, and it's not getting any easier to answer. I've been teaching Freshman Comp for four years now, which is just long enough for me to realize that I have many more questions than answers regarding what works and what doesn't. That said, regardless of what experiments I have tried (for example, focusing more on grammar or more on style, incorporating more peer reviewing or more freewriting), I find that certain things remain constant: critical reading/critical thinking, the rhetorical situation, and community. I believe these three things are related, but for the sake of convenience, I will try to discuss them separately.
I am not even sure if we can teach critical thinking, and if we can, I am even more skeptical about our ability to measure success. However, I am fairly certain that we can't expect our students to be critical thinkers unless we can help them become critical readers (and here I include critical viewers, listeners, etc.). I think that by the time we reach college age, we have all developed critical skills, but in many cases we haven't learned to apply them in a wide variety of contexts, and perhaps we haven't learned to apply them self-reflexively and systematically. I spend some time in almost every class helping students develop these skills. These activities provide the opportunity to consider topics such as organization, coherence, evidence, and logic, which I hope (though success is certainly not guaranteed!) that students will begin to model in their own writing. Assuming critical reading can ultimately lead to critical thinking, why do I think it's important? Just take a look at the level of public discourse surrounding any number of topics (global warming, Iraq, abortion, the PATRIOT act, just to name a few). I have to believe (Yes, I am still an idealist.) that if more people had better critical thinking skills, we would demand and receive a higher level of public discourse and would be better able to participate in democratic decision-making.
I can't privilege any one component of the rhetorical situation. The writer, purpose, message, and audience form a dynamic system that must be considered as a whole. In conjunction with the critical reading assignments described above, I help students learn how to identify the components of the rhetorical situation. The emphasis here is to help them see the dynamic nature of this balance of forces, so they are not tempted to rely solely on formulas (like the five-paragraph essay) when faced with a particular writing situation.
Before I discuss community, I have to confess that I consider writing a very private act. This may have something to do with my personality, but I have always found the idea of the writer holed up in a garret hammering away at a typewriter very appealing. I certainly have never felt comfortable in "writer's circles" or other peer reviewing sessions. Nonetheless, I believe that emphasizing community and collaboration is very important. Years of working on collaborative technical writing teams have helped dispel my romantic notion of the "lone writer" somewhat. I recognize that much of the writing that my students will do will be as part of some sort of community. And in spite of the resistance I often get from students when I assign collaborative work or peer reviewing, I think that most of my students are actually ahead of me in this area. Partially because of new communication technology (text messaging, cell phones, etc.) they are often much more comfortable sharing their work at all phases of the writing process. In addition to emphasizing community discussion of critical reading assignments, I am working to incorporate more (and more meaningful) peer review into my syllabus.
I've been struggling with this question all week, and it's not getting any easier to answer. I've been teaching Freshman Comp for four years now, which is just long enough for me to realize that I have many more questions than answers regarding what works and what doesn't. That said, regardless of what experiments I have tried (for example, focusing more on grammar or more on style, incorporating more peer reviewing or more freewriting), I find that certain things remain constant: critical reading/critical thinking, the rhetorical situation, and community. I believe these three things are related, but for the sake of convenience, I will try to discuss them separately.
I am not even sure if we can teach critical thinking, and if we can, I am even more skeptical about our ability to measure success. However, I am fairly certain that we can't expect our students to be critical thinkers unless we can help them become critical readers (and here I include critical viewers, listeners, etc.). I think that by the time we reach college age, we have all developed critical skills, but in many cases we haven't learned to apply them in a wide variety of contexts, and perhaps we haven't learned to apply them self-reflexively and systematically. I spend some time in almost every class helping students develop these skills. These activities provide the opportunity to consider topics such as organization, coherence, evidence, and logic, which I hope (though success is certainly not guaranteed!) that students will begin to model in their own writing. Assuming critical reading can ultimately lead to critical thinking, why do I think it's important? Just take a look at the level of public discourse surrounding any number of topics (global warming, Iraq, abortion, the PATRIOT act, just to name a few). I have to believe (Yes, I am still an idealist.) that if more people had better critical thinking skills, we would demand and receive a higher level of public discourse and would be better able to participate in democratic decision-making.
I can't privilege any one component of the rhetorical situation. The writer, purpose, message, and audience form a dynamic system that must be considered as a whole. In conjunction with the critical reading assignments described above, I help students learn how to identify the components of the rhetorical situation. The emphasis here is to help them see the dynamic nature of this balance of forces, so they are not tempted to rely solely on formulas (like the five-paragraph essay) when faced with a particular writing situation.
Before I discuss community, I have to confess that I consider writing a very private act. This may have something to do with my personality, but I have always found the idea of the writer holed up in a garret hammering away at a typewriter very appealing. I certainly have never felt comfortable in "writer's circles" or other peer reviewing sessions. Nonetheless, I believe that emphasizing community and collaboration is very important. Years of working on collaborative technical writing teams have helped dispel my romantic notion of the "lone writer" somewhat. I recognize that much of the writing that my students will do will be as part of some sort of community. And in spite of the resistance I often get from students when I assign collaborative work or peer reviewing, I think that most of my students are actually ahead of me in this area. Partially because of new communication technology (text messaging, cell phones, etc.) they are often much more comfortable sharing their work at all phases of the writing process. In addition to emphasizing community discussion of critical reading assignments, I am working to incorporate more (and more meaningful) peer review into my syllabus.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)