Take 20

I just want to preface this response by saying that I love documentaries. The 7 Up series and Errol Morris’s films are among my favorites. So I was intrigued when I found out that Todd Taylor had put together an interview-style documentary about teaching composition. In particular, I was curious to discover if the documentary format had anything to offer to our understanding of teaching composition that could not be easily achieved in an essay or book. In the next few paragraphs, I will discuss my thoughts about the directorial and editorial decisions made by the filmmaker, the content of the interviewees’ comments, and my overall impression of the film.

THE FILM

In the Director’s Notes, Taylor tells us that each interview was shot in a single take. Taylor’s job, therefore, was to edit the film in such a way as to provide a coherent and compelling range of responses to each question. Obviously, only a few answers could be used for each question; otherwise the film would be several hours long. When I first started watching the film, the editorial style reminded me of Errol Morris’s documentaries: one-on-one interviews with individuals stitched together to create a story. Unlike in Morris’s films, however, the interviewer is completely absent from Take 20. Other than the editing the answers, the only intrusion of the filmmaker is in some cases, to display the question on the screen before a series of answers or to display the interviewees name; we never hear the interviewer’s voice. While this decision appropriately places the focus on the composition scholars, it detracts from the dialogic element, forcing the interviewees to provide all the details of the narrative. Taylor organizes the questions in such a way as to provide a sort of narrative structure—from the first day teaching to the future of composition. However, because the responses are theme-driven rather than plot-driven, this strategy only works to a limited extent.

Fortunately, by making each of the snippets so short, Taylor avoids making the impression that the viewer is being lectured to. Also, by carefully selecting the scenes, Taylor makes sure we get to know the interviewees as real people with personalities, not just talking heads. However, by omitting the interviewer’s interaction with the participants, and by deciding to do individual interviews rather than group interviews, the film fails to achieve a certain dialogic quality, about which I will have more to say in my reaction.

Another stylistic choice made by Taylor was to switch back and forth between black and white and color. At first I thought there might be some significance to whether a scene was shown in color or not (e.g., color scenes were somehow more insightful than those shown in black and white); however, ultimately I decided that these decisions were more or less random, probably provided just for the sake of visual variety. While I wasn’t particularly bothered by switching from one color scheme to the other, I don’t think the technique added to the film’s effectiveness. I also wondered why some questions were explicitly displayed while others were implied. Were the stated questions more important? Again, I don’t think any particular significance was intended by this decision; it seems to have been used to give the film a more “organic,” conversational feel. I think it achieved this goal to some extent, but I occasionally missed transitions from one question to another.

THE CONTENT

The questions asked fall into three broad but related categories: classroom practice, pedagogical theory, and teacher development/scholarship. The boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, though, and some of the questions easily fit into more than one category.

Teacher Development

The audience for this film consists of composition teachers, and the film is framed by questions spanning a teacher’s career: What was your first day in the classroom like? What does the future hold for composition? Interspersed throughout the film are other questions that focus on the teacher’s preparation, ongoing scholarship, and influences.

The answers to questions in this category revealed an emphasis on continual growth and, in general, a move from being rule-driven and rigid to being guided by shared experiences with students, colleagues, and fellow scholars.

What I found most interesting in the responses to the question about their first day as composition teachers was the combination of fear and idealism that these people displayed. I think that is true of just about all of us who choose this profession. Putting this question first really connects the audience with the interviewees, setting the stage for the shared journey to follow.

Classroom Practice

Most writing teachers are probably anxious to find out what respected composition teachers and scholars are doing in the classroom. Appropriately, Take 20 addresses most of these questions early in the film. Topics covered include developing a syllabus and lesson plan, creating assignments, and planning course content. The answers to questions in this category cover a fairly wide range, but one thing that is missing is the “sage on the stage.” None of the respondents mentioned that they spend much class time lecturing. Not surprisingly, Bartholomae’s syllabus emphasized measured growth of student writers over the course of the semester. Several respondents emphasized group work and balancing time between writing and reflection. Ideas such as sequencing, using non-traditional genres, and student choice were mentioned in response to the question about assignments.

Pedagogy

As the film progresses, the questions go from covering the basics of classroom practice to addressing more specific issues related to composition pedagogy. Many of the topics we have discussed this semester are addressed:

• What are the aims of teaching composition?
• How should composition teachers respond to student writing?
• How do you deal with process and product?
• What is the importance of peer groups?
• What impact does technology have on pedagogy?
• What is the role of difference in the composition classroom?

Many of the trends we have noted were reflected in the interviewees’ responses:

• The movement from focusing on error and mechanics to emphasizing rhetoric and socially situated writing.
• The delicate balance between preparing students to participate in academic discourse and preparing them to challenge fixed ideas about the academy and other social constructs
• The trend in response away from focusing on error and toward a more rhetorical approach
• The recognition that technology does not only serve pedagogical goals; it also shapes them.

MY REACTION

There are several themes that emerge over the course of Take 20. First, and to me most important, is that fact that all of these scholars’ ideas about teaching writing are intimately tied to their classroom experiences. While they are clearly informed by scholarship (and are in many cases responsible for creating extremely significant scholarship), they obviously listen to their students and continue to adapt their practices to the changing rhetorical situation represented by the composition classroom. Lunsford and others mentioned having to reinvent themselves several times over the course of their careers. Second, all of the interviewees come across as humble, service oriented, and willing to admit that they don’t have all the answers. In all cases, their primary concern is their students’ success, followed by their dedication to the advancement of the field. Even those who don’t explicitly refer to discourse communities or the social aspects of writing seem to recognize that their success and fulfillment is intimately rooted in the classroom and professional discourse communities in which they participate.

If I have any serious criticism of Take 20, it is that the way the film was constructed—from a series of individual interviews—reveals diversity of practices as well as common concerns, but doesn’t really show the dissent and disagreement that is essential to the growth of any field. The viewer is left to either believe that the composition community is characterized by polite salon conversation or (as is more likely the case) to imagine the disagreements and arguments that the film only indirectly alludes to. For example, I found myself imagining the conversation if Cheryl Glenn, John Schilb, Jacqueline Royster, and Malea Powell were sitting in a room together responding to these 20 questions. I am sure the same basic image of each scholar would emerge, but the viewer would get a better sense of the dissent, dialectic, and negotiation that are involved in the knowledge-making process.

So, to answer my original question, does Take 20 provide insights into teaching writing that an essay or book could not? I think it does. It succeeds in showing us that these prominent scholars and teachers are first and foremost human beings. Like us, they make mistakes, have successes and disappointments, and strive to make a difference in their students’ lives. No matter how brilliant the theory or effective the pedagogy, teaching is still a human (and, with a nod to Jacqueline Royster, humane) science. It is encouraging to see that the leading minds in the field have not lost sight of that. Despite the minor shortcomings of the film, Todd Taylor has done the composition community a great service by making Take 20. The only other way to get this kind of access would be to meet all of these people at a conference, convince each of them to talk to you about work for 30 minutes, and be smart enough to ask the right questions. Not very likely!