I remember as I was angrily declaiming against the idea of opening class by assigning the number of specific letter grades that would be given in the class having the sane part of me sit there and go, "What button got pressed here, because this reaction is a bit extreme, a bit...nuts?!" Later, with some distance I was able to figure out what it was that makes true curve grading, or the idea of declaring x number of each letter grades will be given at the beginning of a class really does upset me.
First, it offends my sense of equality of opportunity. In a perfect world with perfect students everyone should get an A. Now because we don't have an ideal situation, I can understand that the appearance of any "academically challenging" class where every student has an A or perhaps even A's and B's is a red flag. However, I cannot accept anything that artificially limits the grade of any student. To me every student should have the opportunity to earn his or her own A.
Second, I don't believe that my performance should be determined by the performance of others. Affected? Inevitable. Determined? Unethical! I do not accept that educational outcomes should be determined by forces outside the control of the individual. Yes, that is part of real life, but that aspect of real life will be reflected in the classroom naturally without us bringing it in artificially. Education is supposed to be like the real world, but there are also idealistic even utopian ideal to it that is supposed to promote people's potential. I see no reason to begin the real world's smack down early. Besides competition for jobs in general is far more reflective of what should happen in the classroom than the example given of competition for a single given position. That is in the real world, failure to achieve a particular position does not preclude you from achieving an equivalent position at another firm. In the classroom, one person achieving a particular grade should not preclude someone else from doing so. We're not limited to handing out a single A the way a firm may be limited to hiring for a single position. Unless we impose that limit and create artificial scarcity. I don't like it. The teacher has an obligation to society/subject and to his or her students and to grade in this fashion fails to honor that obligation to students.
Finally, I believe that grades should be determined by performance against known standards (even, dare I say it, objective standards - to the extent possible) and not against each other. My grade in a given course should be determined by the quality of my performance in that course and my ability to meet that criteria. If I do those things in an excellent manner I should get an "A." Is that going to be subjective somewhat? Yes. But better subjective than arbitrary.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Pedagogy at the End of All Things
This post is especially interesting, as its version 4.0 of my pedagogy for the semester, and 3.0 for the blog. For those of you who are reading (surely someone is out there) I promise this will not be the mammoth posting that version 2.0 was. Hopefully no one - with apologies to the unfortunate Dr. Souder - actually had to read that whole thing.
This class has done more for me professionally than any single other course I've ever taken, period. While this has been, ostensibly, a study of the theories of composition, the discussion has taken place inevitably, and nearly at all times in the context of the classroom. The theorists all paint themselves as rising to the defense of the students in one fashion or another. Therefore, I have taken the course as a chance to repeatedly re-evaluate my pedagogy in the light of the various theories we've been presented: some have changed my classroom practice already this semester, some I won't be using, and some figure into my ever grandiose plans for reshaping my courses over the summer. For certain, when I return in the fall, having had this course and the time to apply my conclusions to my teaching, I will never teach writing the same way again.
I keep reminding myself that I want this to be relatively short and practical. Short for a windbag like me is always relative, and even occasionally achievable. Practical, well...I'll try not to spend too much time playing with pure theory.
Given an ideal situation:
My writing instruction will focus on the development of rhetorical argument. The traditional modes will be taught in my classroom, but not as ends in themselves. Rather they will be presented as manners of thinking about problems that we address through writing. As Mike Rose indicates in "Remedial Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal," these techniques are really mental patterns for addressing problems, and it is in that fashion that they should be taught. As Dr. D said in the frustration of explaining the skills we teach in composition, "We teach thinking." Indeed we do.
In addition to a focus on argument, I want to make the They Say/I Say focus on dialogic writing a key to my pedagogy. In thinking and rethinking about what Graff and Birkenstein are saying in this text, I am convinced that the true focus of the text is not argument, it is dialogue. Now, Graff is famously, and correctly associated with argument, but the focus of They Say/I Say is not how to establish and back an argument, it's how to make that argument dialogic, how to take your argument out of a vacuum and make it a part a larger conversation. I want this to become a focus of my pedagogy.
I want to make sure that my class is a class between what Lindemann calls "the how" and "the what." That is I want process and the actual act of writing to be a major portion of my class as well as the moments of more formal instruction. Ideally a sixty-forty split or better in favor of class time spent in the acts of writing. I want each major piece to go through a full drafting and revising process with at least one rewrite. I want to provide a full workshop experience to my students allowing them to receive feedback from many voices and the experience of giving feedback themselves. I want to provide direct instruction and practice in the intricacies of process, focusing on Murray and Elbow's foundational work in this area.
I want my assessment to reflect my teaching aims. I won't assess writing in in-class essays or essay tests. I may require these types of responses from students, however, the purpose will not be to assess their writing, but to assess their ideas in connection with some other aspect of the high school English class. In grading these pieces writing elements will be handled with utmost leniency because students have not had the opportunity to revise or even to edit the piece I am receiving. When I want to assess the student's writing I will use a writing assignment that moves through the full writing process, with at least two full drafts before a final draft is accepted and a conference on at least one draft, if not both. Then this piece will become part of a portfolio which will form the backbone of the writing assessment in the course. I like Elbow's idea of not grading anything until I have two pieces in hand, and then you can see where the student wants to go and discuss the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each piece.
Politics is an unavoidable part of the classroom experience. As Orwell said, everything is political. That does not mean that I should turn ideologue and push an specific ideological or political agenda as part of my teaching. In fact, I think that the teacher's job is to play devil's advocate to the ideas the students present, showing that things are always at least two sided and that the arguments are often intricate and not easily resolved. In this fashion the teacher can encourage students to question their own ideas without intentionally or unintentionally promoting one side or another of any given issue. I don't believe that the teacher's personal political beliefs have any place in the classroom unless the students ask for them.
Finally, technology in the classroom is an entirely new aspect to my pedagogy following this year's experience. While I am most likely to find that my classroom approach will change very little, I will try to provide more opportunities for my students to use various pieces of composing technology in connection with the class. I am still floundering on this one, but would like to find ways to incorporate blogging, and the kind of digital document platform Google Docs provides as a part of working in the classroom. I could see having the responses to certain readings or general journaling take the form of blogs. The dilemma for me is how to use the blogs in the composition portion of class if not for responses. If I am not using a lot of readings, than what are the students blogging responses to? If it is journaling, how do I keep this particular portion of class from becoming a meaningless feel good exercise? There are of course more aspects than this to technology, I would like to learn more about digital portfolios to accompany an adoption of text portfolios in the classroom, AND I have already in the past included producing a web page as a means of addressing an assignment. That would continue.
At the end of the year I am stepping off into several new things that I've been intrigued by, but failed to employ in my classroom in the past: the use of portfolio assessment, a greater focus on process and a full application of writer's workshop, and a greater use of technology through the application of the programs/platforms available through web 2.0. I don't know that I will get all of this ready for the fall. I am also looking to redesign my instruction of literature by employing literature circles across the board in class. It should be an interesting year!
This class has done more for me professionally than any single other course I've ever taken, period. While this has been, ostensibly, a study of the theories of composition, the discussion has taken place inevitably, and nearly at all times in the context of the classroom. The theorists all paint themselves as rising to the defense of the students in one fashion or another. Therefore, I have taken the course as a chance to repeatedly re-evaluate my pedagogy in the light of the various theories we've been presented: some have changed my classroom practice already this semester, some I won't be using, and some figure into my ever grandiose plans for reshaping my courses over the summer. For certain, when I return in the fall, having had this course and the time to apply my conclusions to my teaching, I will never teach writing the same way again.
I keep reminding myself that I want this to be relatively short and practical. Short for a windbag like me is always relative, and even occasionally achievable. Practical, well...I'll try not to spend too much time playing with pure theory.
Given an ideal situation:
My writing instruction will focus on the development of rhetorical argument. The traditional modes will be taught in my classroom, but not as ends in themselves. Rather they will be presented as manners of thinking about problems that we address through writing. As Mike Rose indicates in "Remedial Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal," these techniques are really mental patterns for addressing problems, and it is in that fashion that they should be taught. As Dr. D said in the frustration of explaining the skills we teach in composition, "We teach thinking." Indeed we do.
In addition to a focus on argument, I want to make the They Say/I Say focus on dialogic writing a key to my pedagogy. In thinking and rethinking about what Graff and Birkenstein are saying in this text, I am convinced that the true focus of the text is not argument, it is dialogue. Now, Graff is famously, and correctly associated with argument, but the focus of They Say/I Say is not how to establish and back an argument, it's how to make that argument dialogic, how to take your argument out of a vacuum and make it a part a larger conversation. I want this to become a focus of my pedagogy.
I want to make sure that my class is a class between what Lindemann calls "the how" and "the what." That is I want process and the actual act of writing to be a major portion of my class as well as the moments of more formal instruction. Ideally a sixty-forty split or better in favor of class time spent in the acts of writing. I want each major piece to go through a full drafting and revising process with at least one rewrite. I want to provide a full workshop experience to my students allowing them to receive feedback from many voices and the experience of giving feedback themselves. I want to provide direct instruction and practice in the intricacies of process, focusing on Murray and Elbow's foundational work in this area.
I want my assessment to reflect my teaching aims. I won't assess writing in in-class essays or essay tests. I may require these types of responses from students, however, the purpose will not be to assess their writing, but to assess their ideas in connection with some other aspect of the high school English class. In grading these pieces writing elements will be handled with utmost leniency because students have not had the opportunity to revise or even to edit the piece I am receiving. When I want to assess the student's writing I will use a writing assignment that moves through the full writing process, with at least two full drafts before a final draft is accepted and a conference on at least one draft, if not both. Then this piece will become part of a portfolio which will form the backbone of the writing assessment in the course. I like Elbow's idea of not grading anything until I have two pieces in hand, and then you can see where the student wants to go and discuss the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each piece.
Politics is an unavoidable part of the classroom experience. As Orwell said, everything is political. That does not mean that I should turn ideologue and push an specific ideological or political agenda as part of my teaching. In fact, I think that the teacher's job is to play devil's advocate to the ideas the students present, showing that things are always at least two sided and that the arguments are often intricate and not easily resolved. In this fashion the teacher can encourage students to question their own ideas without intentionally or unintentionally promoting one side or another of any given issue. I don't believe that the teacher's personal political beliefs have any place in the classroom unless the students ask for them.
Finally, technology in the classroom is an entirely new aspect to my pedagogy following this year's experience. While I am most likely to find that my classroom approach will change very little, I will try to provide more opportunities for my students to use various pieces of composing technology in connection with the class. I am still floundering on this one, but would like to find ways to incorporate blogging, and the kind of digital document platform Google Docs provides as a part of working in the classroom. I could see having the responses to certain readings or general journaling take the form of blogs. The dilemma for me is how to use the blogs in the composition portion of class if not for responses. If I am not using a lot of readings, than what are the students blogging responses to? If it is journaling, how do I keep this particular portion of class from becoming a meaningless feel good exercise? There are of course more aspects than this to technology, I would like to learn more about digital portfolios to accompany an adoption of text portfolios in the classroom, AND I have already in the past included producing a web page as a means of addressing an assignment. That would continue.
At the end of the year I am stepping off into several new things that I've been intrigued by, but failed to employ in my classroom in the past: the use of portfolio assessment, a greater focus on process and a full application of writer's workshop, and a greater use of technology through the application of the programs/platforms available through web 2.0. I don't know that I will get all of this ready for the fall. I am also looking to redesign my instruction of literature by employing literature circles across the board in class. It should be an interesting year!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wendy Bishop: All Writing is Creative...
...but is all writing creative writing? I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation. Dr. Bishop pursued writing in directions that I have become very, very interested in.
Accepting the traditional barrier for purposes of discussing it, I must then first propose a definition for "creative writing" as I understand it. When I think of creative writing, the kind of writing that gets its own course (or even section/emphasis of study), I think of poetry, short stories/novels, plays, and, after taking Juan's Creative Non-Fiction workshop a variety of personal essays, memoirs, and perhaps even autobiographies. I would have to contend that Emerson and Thoreau are eminent practitioners of creative writing. I think there are columnists who have gained the distinction as well.
That said, I'm on the fence. I would assert without fear that all writing is creative. We are at least synthesizing our ideas, experiences, influences etc. into something new on the paper or screen. Certainly this is creative in both the generative and aesthetic sense. However, there is, in the traditionally defined creative writing genres a difference of purpose that I believe is telling. Whatever lofty ideas presented/espoused by a given piece of literature, in order to be literature there has to be a primarily aesthetic goal. I think this is the distinguishing line between creative writing and writing geared toward other purposes.
Now, if one broadens the definition of creative writing all bets are off. One might easily argue that all writing is creative, therefore all writing is creative writing and at that point, I would accept the syllogism. I think even, that this would clarify the argument, which is really, what is the difference between writing with a primarily aesthetic goal, and writing for other purposes. (I am choosing aesthetic, bu it would be equally fair to say entertainment, and is probably best labeled as some combination of the two.) The question then is can all writing be aesthetic writing, that is writing that counts aesthetics as a (if not the) primary purpose. I would answer no. Academic writing, technical writing and many other types while requiring creativity (they are all creative, that is generative) are markedly different in tone and purpose from aesthetic writing.
Now surely someone will pull a piece (I have one in mind by Donal Murray myself) that surely blurs the boundaries if not outright defies them. This (okay, these) exception(s) are just that: exceptions. They prove the rule that there is a distinguishing line of style and tone between the types of writing that keeps many techniques of one from being affective in the other.
That said, I think that there is a ton the two can learn from each other, especially in terms of process and process difficulties - revision, editing, writer's block etc. I have been astounded by the correlations between the process theorists and the "theorists" on the creative side, as I detailed in much earlier post on Peter Elbow. I do think that a union of the two types of writing, recognizing that all writing is creative even if it isn't all aesthetic writing, would yield generative processes, and revision practices universally beneficial and applicable. I would welcome the opportunity to learn more of what Dr. Bishop did in this area, and to explore it further myself.
Accepting the traditional barrier for purposes of discussing it, I must then first propose a definition for "creative writing" as I understand it. When I think of creative writing, the kind of writing that gets its own course (or even section/emphasis of study), I think of poetry, short stories/novels, plays, and, after taking Juan's Creative Non-Fiction workshop a variety of personal essays, memoirs, and perhaps even autobiographies. I would have to contend that Emerson and Thoreau are eminent practitioners of creative writing. I think there are columnists who have gained the distinction as well.
That said, I'm on the fence. I would assert without fear that all writing is creative. We are at least synthesizing our ideas, experiences, influences etc. into something new on the paper or screen. Certainly this is creative in both the generative and aesthetic sense. However, there is, in the traditionally defined creative writing genres a difference of purpose that I believe is telling. Whatever lofty ideas presented/espoused by a given piece of literature, in order to be literature there has to be a primarily aesthetic goal. I think this is the distinguishing line between creative writing and writing geared toward other purposes.
Now, if one broadens the definition of creative writing all bets are off. One might easily argue that all writing is creative, therefore all writing is creative writing and at that point, I would accept the syllogism. I think even, that this would clarify the argument, which is really, what is the difference between writing with a primarily aesthetic goal, and writing for other purposes. (I am choosing aesthetic, bu it would be equally fair to say entertainment, and is probably best labeled as some combination of the two.) The question then is can all writing be aesthetic writing, that is writing that counts aesthetics as a (if not the) primary purpose. I would answer no. Academic writing, technical writing and many other types while requiring creativity (they are all creative, that is generative) are markedly different in tone and purpose from aesthetic writing.
Now surely someone will pull a piece (I have one in mind by Donal Murray myself) that surely blurs the boundaries if not outright defies them. This (okay, these) exception(s) are just that: exceptions. They prove the rule that there is a distinguishing line of style and tone between the types of writing that keeps many techniques of one from being affective in the other.
That said, I think that there is a ton the two can learn from each other, especially in terms of process and process difficulties - revision, editing, writer's block etc. I have been astounded by the correlations between the process theorists and the "theorists" on the creative side, as I detailed in much earlier post on Peter Elbow. I do think that a union of the two types of writing, recognizing that all writing is creative even if it isn't all aesthetic writing, would yield generative processes, and revision practices universally beneficial and applicable. I would welcome the opportunity to learn more of what Dr. Bishop did in this area, and to explore it further myself.
Kenneth A. Bruffee: Writing Together Can Be Fun?
I have to admit that my personal experience has made me upfront leery of any of the theorists so far who have really pushed collaboration in composition. I haven't had very many positive experiences with collaborative work.
I was always frustrated with peer review in high school and as an undergrad because it didn't seem to produce anything I could use. I would get it done because my teachers required it, but when it came to re-writing the paper I tore it apart and put it back together myself. I never actually followed anything they said. Part of this was (and probably still is) more than a little arrogance. I am very, very confident in my skills as a writer. Still, when the general level of quality was comments like "nice description" and "good word choice" or occasionally something more splashy like "nice imagery" can you blame me? Thanks guys, that will improve my paper, a lot.
As a college student I did have a good experience or two with the writing lab at BYU (yes, it did take an assigned visit to get me in there), I learned to enjoy the discussion process, and to help guide my peer reviewers towards questions I had about the piece (which provided mroe useful feedback as well) and otherwise found this most common of collaborative techniques a much more helpful tool. Then as a grad student last semester I took great pleasure in participating in one of Professor Morales' Graduate Writers' Workshop courses.
With the incredible amount of information Thomas provided for us in his presentation (Wow!) I have to admit that I was left with my head swimming somewhat. However, I picked up enough of what was happening to be forced to step back from previouis skepticism and say, "Huh. If someone this smart and well-respected is saying 'Hey, this is the way to go' perhaps I should reconsider. Certainly, I have learned as Bruffee points out, that, well taught, the collaborative revision we experience as peer review or a workshop format can be wonderfully beneficial, and if nothing else trains the critical eye in the participants. In addition, the format gives the teacher the opportunity (rare in many cases, or at least rarely occurring) to provide an additional audience, a "real" (okay a "somewhat less artifical") audience for student work. Thomas, thank you. It becomes apparent that something I've trivialized and set aside needs a much closer examination.
I was always frustrated with peer review in high school and as an undergrad because it didn't seem to produce anything I could use. I would get it done because my teachers required it, but when it came to re-writing the paper I tore it apart and put it back together myself. I never actually followed anything they said. Part of this was (and probably still is) more than a little arrogance. I am very, very confident in my skills as a writer. Still, when the general level of quality was comments like "nice description" and "good word choice" or occasionally something more splashy like "nice imagery" can you blame me? Thanks guys, that will improve my paper, a lot.
As a college student I did have a good experience or two with the writing lab at BYU (yes, it did take an assigned visit to get me in there), I learned to enjoy the discussion process, and to help guide my peer reviewers towards questions I had about the piece (which provided mroe useful feedback as well) and otherwise found this most common of collaborative techniques a much more helpful tool. Then as a grad student last semester I took great pleasure in participating in one of Professor Morales' Graduate Writers' Workshop courses.
With the incredible amount of information Thomas provided for us in his presentation (Wow!) I have to admit that I was left with my head swimming somewhat. However, I picked up enough of what was happening to be forced to step back from previouis skepticism and say, "Huh. If someone this smart and well-respected is saying 'Hey, this is the way to go' perhaps I should reconsider. Certainly, I have learned as Bruffee points out, that, well taught, the collaborative revision we experience as peer review or a workshop format can be wonderfully beneficial, and if nothing else trains the critical eye in the participants. In addition, the format gives the teacher the opportunity (rare in many cases, or at least rarely occurring) to provide an additional audience, a "real" (okay a "somewhat less artifical") audience for student work. Thomas, thank you. It becomes apparent that something I've trivialized and set aside needs a much closer examination.
Kathleen Blake Yancey: Texts as Influences, Portfolios, Digital Portfolios, and Assessment
Rhonda Turner did an admirable job (several weeks ago now...whoops...) of presenting Kathleen Blake Yancey to the class. I am glad that she was able to contact Dr. Yancey directly as it was fascinating to hear the responses to her (Turner's) thoughtful questions direct from the source.
Like our esteemed presenter, I found Dr. Yancey's choice of most influential texts rather than people quite interesting. I think it says a lot about academics, and wonder how many of us would have to respond in the same fashion, choosing texts of one kind or another rather than people, if we were truly honest as to our biggest influences.
I have long been interested in the use of portfolio's in the classroom, but have never been sufficiently interested/motivated to get out and find the information necessary. Having seen this presentation and then done some reading (I read "Composition in a New Key" and "Palimpsest and Portfolios," both cited by Turner) I am now feeling much more motivated toward gathering the practical side of the information I would need to begin using portfolio assessment. In fact, it may become my big summer project this year (along with reading way more than is healthy for any one human being, and the usual summer job for a poor teacher and annual curriculum tweaks). The presentation of digital portfolio's was fascinating. I have offered the students in my classes the option of presenting a web page as one of their writing projects in connection with one of my favorite writing projects for years now (it is part of a Tom Romano inspired multi-genre project), however, I had never considered the possibility of making a general presentation format for all students of the type Turner demonstrated in class. I would like to learn more about both Portfolio assessment and digital portfolios for application in my own classroom.
In further reading that split off from these articles by Dr. Yancey I encountered two committee produced assessment pieces that she was a part of. The one I was most impressed by was the Position Statement written by the CCCC Committee on Assessment of which she was the chair at the time. The statement, while containing many of the weaknesses of documents of with its composition history (the over formal presentation, the strained stretching of positions to accomodate the wildly divergent views of a field like ours, etc.), offered several ideas that I found fascinating and that seem particular "Yanceyian" having learned about her work on assessment and on portfolios in particular.
One was that any piece of graded writing (and I believe that this would apply to anything given as a or as part of a summative assessment) should reflect the benefits of the entire writing process. In other words, it should be a drafted and revised paper rather than a composed at the moment piece. Interesting how our assessment often contradicts our teaching. Here we sit and preach process, process, process in terms of how to produce good writing, and then we assess writing by asking students to sit down and spur of the moment write up something that will see no revision, the barest possible minimum of editing, and no outside eyes at all for assessment of their writing skills. Interesting.
The second was that writing should not be assessed through a single piece, but always through multiple pieces - which would, by default, be by a portfolio of work. This was particularly interesting to me, when I read it as it coincided not only with the presentation info, but with an Elbow piece I had just read where he talked about having the students write and not grading anything until he had at least two pieces (drafts or different pieces I'm not entirely certain of at the moment; I don't think it matters much) in hand for the sake of comparison. Then he could point out comparative strengths and weaknesses from the student's own work, an idea I thought admirable.
In any case these two ideas on assessment made a lot of sense to me. I've questioned my teaching a lot in this class, but most has been an "Oooooh, what a cool idea I want to try that" feeling. This was more like "Ouch. She's write. This practice is unfair to my students." I think, judging by my own reaction to it, that - as far as my own immediate teaching practices - these may be the most impactful ideas I've run into this semester.
Like our esteemed presenter, I found Dr. Yancey's choice of most influential texts rather than people quite interesting. I think it says a lot about academics, and wonder how many of us would have to respond in the same fashion, choosing texts of one kind or another rather than people, if we were truly honest as to our biggest influences.
I have long been interested in the use of portfolio's in the classroom, but have never been sufficiently interested/motivated to get out and find the information necessary. Having seen this presentation and then done some reading (I read "Composition in a New Key" and "Palimpsest and Portfolios," both cited by Turner) I am now feeling much more motivated toward gathering the practical side of the information I would need to begin using portfolio assessment. In fact, it may become my big summer project this year (along with reading way more than is healthy for any one human being, and the usual summer job for a poor teacher and annual curriculum tweaks). The presentation of digital portfolio's was fascinating. I have offered the students in my classes the option of presenting a web page as one of their writing projects in connection with one of my favorite writing projects for years now (it is part of a Tom Romano inspired multi-genre project), however, I had never considered the possibility of making a general presentation format for all students of the type Turner demonstrated in class. I would like to learn more about both Portfolio assessment and digital portfolios for application in my own classroom.
In further reading that split off from these articles by Dr. Yancey I encountered two committee produced assessment pieces that she was a part of. The one I was most impressed by was the Position Statement written by the CCCC Committee on Assessment of which she was the chair at the time. The statement, while containing many of the weaknesses of documents of with its composition history (the over formal presentation, the strained stretching of positions to accomodate the wildly divergent views of a field like ours, etc.), offered several ideas that I found fascinating and that seem particular "Yanceyian" having learned about her work on assessment and on portfolios in particular.
One was that any piece of graded writing (and I believe that this would apply to anything given as a or as part of a summative assessment) should reflect the benefits of the entire writing process. In other words, it should be a drafted and revised paper rather than a composed at the moment piece. Interesting how our assessment often contradicts our teaching. Here we sit and preach process, process, process in terms of how to produce good writing, and then we assess writing by asking students to sit down and spur of the moment write up something that will see no revision, the barest possible minimum of editing, and no outside eyes at all for assessment of their writing skills. Interesting.
The second was that writing should not be assessed through a single piece, but always through multiple pieces - which would, by default, be by a portfolio of work. This was particularly interesting to me, when I read it as it coincided not only with the presentation info, but with an Elbow piece I had just read where he talked about having the students write and not grading anything until he had at least two pieces (drafts or different pieces I'm not entirely certain of at the moment; I don't think it matters much) in hand for the sake of comparison. Then he could point out comparative strengths and weaknesses from the student's own work, an idea I thought admirable.
In any case these two ideas on assessment made a lot of sense to me. I've questioned my teaching a lot in this class, but most has been an "Oooooh, what a cool idea I want to try that" feeling. This was more like "Ouch. She's write. This practice is unfair to my students." I think, judging by my own reaction to it, that - as far as my own immediate teaching practices - these may be the most impactful ideas I've run into this semester.
Cynthia Selfe
The first thing that I noticed about Synthia on the handout provided to us was the fascinatingly long and varied list of interests. That alone was enough to draw my solid interest. I think if we are to remain alive intellectually as engaged scholars we must be pursuing various avenues and aspects of interest. I would hope that someday someone who asked me (I don't expect I'll ever have done enough of importance for anyone to find out about it any other way) to receive such a long and vibrant list of interests. I remember reading in a memoir entitled Know it All about the author's experience meeting Alex Trebek. Trebek told him during their discussion that a person should maintain an intellectual curiosity even about things that bored them, or something to that effect. I think that is a worthy goal. We cannot specialize in everything, it's impossible, even within our own relatively narrow field of English. But we can maintain an intellectual curiousity about any of the infinite subjects available to us to learn about.
What I learned most from Cynthia's example is something I thought I already knew: the teacher of young people, especially the secondary teacher must maintain a certain level of familiarity with the newest, latest things especially in technology if they are to remain relevant. I knew that it helped that I still listen to current popular music, that I am an avid and opinionated fan of television and movies and so have those in common with my students, but had never made the same connection to the idea of technology itself. I realized in this class for the first time, that my Thoreauian approach to technology (Simplify! Simplify! interpreted as "if it's not absolutely necessary to my life try to do without it...) is perhaps detrimental to my profession as a teacher let alone my ability to relate to my students. I maintain that I do not need to carry around a new fancy cell-phone (I've grudgingly accepted a cell phone paid for by my in-laws as a hint we should call more often) or keep up to date with a site on all the latest social sites to do this, but red in the face I must admit that I have been willfully ignorant of too much. Red in the face not because I did it, but because the root motivation is fear. There is nothing I despise more than feeling stupid. Nothing. And Technology does that to me. A lot. Still, I have also maintained that fear is a stupid reason to avoid trying something, investigating it, at least making an attempt to understand. So this portion of the presentation really opened my eyes.
What I learned most from Cynthia's example is something I thought I already knew: the teacher of young people, especially the secondary teacher must maintain a certain level of familiarity with the newest, latest things especially in technology if they are to remain relevant. I knew that it helped that I still listen to current popular music, that I am an avid and opinionated fan of television and movies and so have those in common with my students, but had never made the same connection to the idea of technology itself. I realized in this class for the first time, that my Thoreauian approach to technology (Simplify! Simplify! interpreted as "if it's not absolutely necessary to my life try to do without it...) is perhaps detrimental to my profession as a teacher let alone my ability to relate to my students. I maintain that I do not need to carry around a new fancy cell-phone (I've grudgingly accepted a cell phone paid for by my in-laws as a hint we should call more often) or keep up to date with a site on all the latest social sites to do this, but red in the face I must admit that I have been willfully ignorant of too much. Red in the face not because I did it, but because the root motivation is fear. There is nothing I despise more than feeling stupid. Nothing. And Technology does that to me. A lot. Still, I have also maintained that fear is a stupid reason to avoid trying something, investigating it, at least making an attempt to understand. So this portion of the presentation really opened my eyes.
Pedagogy Statement 2/(Mid Term Long Essay)
Mid Term Long Essay/Pedagogy Statement Week 10
According to Richard Fulkerson’s “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century,” one controversial issue in the discussion of college composition pedagogy has been the “variant contemporary approaches to to teaching college writing” (Fulkerson, 658). On the one hand, teachers who pursue a Critical/Cultural Studies approach, one informed by the type of advocacy pedagogy promoted by Paulo Freire in The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Teaching, 26), argue that the “larger purpose is to encourage students to resist and to negotiate[…] hegemonic discourses – in order to bring about more personally humane and socially equitable economic and political arrangements” (Berlin, qtd. In Fulkerson 660). Richard Fulkerson, in commenting on this approach says that “the course aim is not ‘improved writing’ but ‘liberation’ from dominant discourse” (Fulkerson, 660) . On the other hand, an expressivist approach, characterized by the focus on the promotion of authentic voice and sincerity of scholars such as Peter Elbow (Wenger, 3/2/2009), contends that the course aim should be to “foster a writer’s aesthetic, cognitive, and moral development” by “employing free writing, journal keeping, reflective writing, and small group dialogic collaborative response” (Burnham, qtd. In Fulkerson 667). Others, Current/Traditionalists, even maintain that one might focus nearly exclusively on product, truncating writing to a quick run through of “outline, write, edit, receive grade, do grammar exercises." My own view is that a variant of what Fulkerson calls Procedural Rhetoric that emphasizes “composition as argumentation” while using rhetoric to “introduce students to an academic discourse community” (Fulkerson 671) holds out the best hope for addressing the needs of students as writers and as (at least for as long as they are in college)academics because it engages students in dialectic with the critical and cultural conversations occurring around their topics, focuses on composition without a pre-determined ideological goal, and is extremely pragmatic in that it is equally adaptable to the various disciplines the students in composition courses will eventually pursue.
In his article “Two Cheers for the Argument Culture,” Gerald Graff writes, “argumentation tends to be seen as one practice among others rather than as […] the meta-practice that all academic practices partake of and converge on” (Two Cheers, 66), and I whole heartedly agree. My approach is described above as a variant of the procedural rhetoric approach because focusing on rhetoric does not eliminate the need to actively teach and move through the writing process, nor does it address the role of assessment, the role of the teacher or the role of technology in the composition classroom. All of these elements must be combined and fully considered before I feel one has truly established a holistic composition theory. I make this statement assigning myself two specific requirements for establishing my own position as a scholar/teacher: 1) The theory should have a strong theoretical basis even if that basis is merely used as a point of departure. 2) It should be a pedagogical theory. In other words, a failure to address all the components of a composition course is a failure to have a complete theory.
Purpose of the Composition Course
The purpose of the fresman composition course is to prepare students for the writing the academy demands of them. Elbow is wrong to put it off to later classes (Responses 87) because it puts the students at a disadvantage vis a vis the expectations of the professors who believe that the students know and are familiar with the genre/tropes of academic argumentation. However, Bartholomae is also wrong in his pursuit of difficult texts as fundamental to the course to prepare students for working with them because no one else is doing so (Responses 86) as that is not the purpose of freshman composition either. I appreciate Lindemann's argument for privileging writing and leaving the texts to the periphery (see Lindemann's Freshman Composition: No Place For Literature), and Elbow's call for the primacy of actual class time spent in the act writing. I remember the most productive writing classes I've ever taken (and I am speaking of specific class sessions here) were spent writing, working at a paragraph level (because we could competently produce paragraphs worth writing within a given period), and dealing with the specific problems of our own arguments, style, thought etc. I would privilege argumentation because I believe Graff's argument that dialogic argumentation captures the essence of the most basic academic activities. The freshman composition course needs to balance the primacy of the actual writing process as a practice in the practicality of producing text, but also needs to introduce the They Say/I Say expectation of dialogic argumentation as the basis of the writing students will be expected to do in the academy and beyond. Even after their time in academe is over, they will be better prepared for their professional lives in any field if they can write in a manner that engages other opinions (for support and refutation) to logically promote an idea/argument.
Argument in the Composition Course
Graff's writing handbook They Say/I Say is what I would use as a primary text. I would place argument at the center of the course, requiring students to engage other opinions in stating their own. Contrary to certain objections raised (see Ann Jurecic's "Getting a Clue: Gerald Graff and the Life of the Mind") writing that engages other opinions does not have to be "about" (Jurecic 326) secondary literature. On the contrary one could be taught to write such argumentation without having to touch critical responses at all. It is entirely possible to produce one's own opinion on a given issue (or piece of literature if the professor so chooses) first, and then engage other opinions to frame your argument, to gain support, and to address the other side effectively. The student's own thought is still the foundation of the entire text, and the text itself is still about the issue at hand, not "about" the "secondary literature" (Jurecic 326) at all. The other brings itself in as a support to the student's argument. This places me in agreement with scholars focusing on argument such as Graff and Bartholomae, and leaves me in contradiction to those, like Elbow, who might privilege other forms of writing in the course. Simply put, creative writing, as much as I love it, and as much as lessons can be learned from the processes and techniques that transfer to academic writing, should not be the focus of freshman composition. The personal writing favored by the expressivist approach has a smaller place perhaps, in that I think it is important for the students to be reflecting on their own process as writers and their growth in addition to producing argument. So, I believe their can be a peripheral role for blogging, journaling, etc. that would allow for this reflective piece. In addition, I believe that towards the end of the course as final assessment is approaching, the reflective writing of the student on the course, their growth, and what they've learned takes on an even greater importance which I will address later.
Process in the Composition Course
Focusing on argument does not alleviate the need to focus on other aspects of writing. I believe that teaching/reinforcing the writing process is essential to the freshman composition course. Students should spend time in class actually producing text, and in in conferencing with their peers and with the teacher about their work. Elbow argues throughout his work for the need to have actual writing taking place in the classroom and I agree that the students need to engage in the process in a place that reinforces its cyclical nature instead of focusing on the finished product alone. Most students will have come from high school writing backgrounds that did this (primarily because the high school curriculum, which places all elements of English studies in the same classroom during the same time period does not often allow the time for true pursuit of process). In addition, their other courses in the university will also focus on the finished product alone. In addition to the argument for presenting the true nature of the writing process and Elbow's argument for time in class producing text, I believe that Donald Murray's work on the writing process particularly that on what he terms "rehearsing" and "re-vision" are essential. Introducing the fact that it is the writer's job to revise - every paper, every time - as Tony mentioned in his presentation on Murray is important. Students don't realize this, and high school tends to emphasize the draft and done approach, or if we're lucky a draft-edit and done approach. I also think that an explicit instruction in recognizing the elements of Murray's rehearsing process can be very, very helpful to students, as this is a part of the writing process that, outside of Murray, (and outside of the university for that matter) I have never encountered before. The twining of argument and process in instruction, leads I believe to the fairest and most accurate methods of assessment.
Assessment in the Writing Class
In addressing assessment in the freshman composition course, I turn to three sources: Donald Murray's "The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference," Peter Elbow's "Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process," and the CCCC Committee on Assessment's (Chaired by Kathleen Blake Yancey) "Writing Assessment: A Position Statement."
A writing course must have both formative and summative assessment. Dr. Murray's powerful description of his growth towards the use of writing conferences and his slow removal of himself from a primary position as lecturer/editor in the writing classroom should be required reading for all teacher's of writing. I believe that the conferences described here, in which Dr. Murray uses Socratic questioning to bring out students' own knowledge of writing and of their work or to create a greater awareness of their work is the perfect form of formative assessment. Application of such writing conferences with both the instructor and peers throughout the course, should provide the primary source of formative assessment.
The second area of assessment that must be addressed is summative assessment. Following principles expressed in his teachings on the writing process, Elbow argues for a separation of what I call the nurturer and the gatekeeper roles of teaching. We all have an urge to protect and promote our students, simultaneously, we all have a notion of our responsibility to society and the institution that we work at to ensure that those who pass our courses receive grades that accurately reflect their knowledge/abilities. Elbow suggests balancing the roles by separating them. In taking this approach, the teacher would first engage the gatekeeper, designing a challenging course with thorough assessment that reflects, objectively a high standard that students are expected to meet. This is the role in which the teacher greets the students, laying out course expectations, and, perhaps, even providing a copy of any final assessment to show students where they will be expected to be at the end of the course. Following this, the teacher becomes the nurturer, doing everything possible to ready the students for the challenges inherent in the course and the assessment pieces. The gatekeeper re-emerges at the end of the course to then turn a purely critical eye on the students' final products knowing that he or she has already done all that was possible to prepare students for this point.
A final word on summative assessment is taken from the CCCC committee's position statement. In the statement the authors argue for assessing "preferably...more than one sample written on more than one occasion, with sufficient time to plan, draft, rewrite, and edit each product or performance." This says to me that a portfolio assessment system should be used, not surprising considering Dr. Yancey's chairing of the committee and her extensive work on assessment and the use of portfolios. For summative assessment I would use a portfolio assessment system, to consist not only of a range of student papers across the semester, but of an extensive reflective piece written by the student covering her or his progress in knowledge and skills throughout the course. Such a portfolio would, ideally, replace a final exam in a composition course.
The Role of the Technology in the Composition Classroom
As most students will be producing their text and doing their research on a computer, it is essential that the composition teacher consider the role of technology in his or her classroom. I believe that the teacher has an obligation to review with students, at least briefly, the principles of academic honesty and how to avoid unintentional plagiarism through accurate citation and honest disclosure. I also believe that the teacher should make use of technology's opportunities for collaboration and community. Activities such as discussion boards and blogging, the use of collaborative learning tools such as the google docs program which allows students to electronically access and edit a piece of writing in a shared electronic space, can all be profitably employed. The instructor should remain aware of caveats and forewarnings given by scholars in the field such as Cynthia Selfe and others that technology cannot be blindly seen as a panacea.
The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom
I believe that Elbow captures the conflicting roles of the teacher in any classroom very effectively in the piece mentioned above "Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process." I believe that the role of gatekeeper is pretty straightforward. What, however, is the role of nurturer? What does it look like in the classroom? I believe that the answer to this question can be found in several areas. Murray's description of conferences included in the earlier section of this essay on assessment is a primary example of the teacher as nurturer. In a safe environment the teacher discusses with the student the strengths and weaknesses of their work with an eye not to summative assessment, but with a focus on helping the student to see where they are (or where their work is) and how they can get to where they want/need to be. The teacher functions in Elbow's words as "a kind of coach (Embracing 337)." I interpret this to mean that we are with students, engaged in the work they are engaged in and working in the trenches of the paper with them to help them improve, just as a coach is often in the middle of the action on an athletic field during practice. It means we need to get very specific and help students with the little things (grammar, syntax, paragraphing, etc.) while also helping them with big picture items such as theses, organization, the development of their arguments, familiarity with various occasions/genres etc. It means that we do (to a reasonable extent) what we ask our students to do, that is, students in a writing course should see us engaged in writing. They should see us as writers as well as professors. This means having the courage to voice your own doubts, interests, goals etc. as a writer where appropriate. I feel that, as described earlier, the conference promoted by Murray is or should be a key component of this role. The teacher then, is both nurturer and gatekeeper: he or she meets the obligations to institution and society by designing tough minded assignments and assessments and holding students to high standards in completing them; she or he meets the obligations to students by working on and between each assignment and assessment with the role of coach - helping in every way possible to improve student performance.
The Role of Politics in the Classroom
As suggested at the beginning of the essay there is a push in the purpose for the composition classroom that I have not addressed. This push, what Fulkerson calls the cultural/critical studies approach, reflects the liberation pedagogy of such academics as Paulo Freire and cites a specific ideological goal of the composition classroom to liberate students from the dominant discourse (Graff, 27). While it has been argued that an ideologically neutral classroom or teaching is impossible (which I concede), I argue that having any such explicitly political ideological goal in the classroom whether openly or not does not serve the purposes of freshman composition. Instead it leads to a focus on the political issues and texts themselves, and rather than teaching writing, the focus of the course becomes at least equally if not primarily the teaching of political thought (see Fulkerson, 665). Such an approach may serve the purposes of other courses at other times, although I would prefer even a naively attempted neutrality to such any approach explicitly promoting any ideological agenda. A teacher as a person in authority can say all that he or she wants that students are free to think for themselves, but if they promote a certain agenda while espousing this idea, they will in fact cause students to either respond without thought in the manner they believe that the teacher wants, or to adopt the position held by the authority figure in the room, who will inevitably by dint of experience be more convincing and authoritative in arguing their position than any of the students (Fulkerson, 666).
I believe that there is an alternative approach that allows us to challenge students' assumptions without imposing our own beliefs. Gerald Graff in an article entitled "Teaching Politcally Without Political Correctness" advocates simply adopting a contrarian's position to each student position. Instead of pushing one agenda all the time, the teacher should find themselves playing multiple roles from multiple political perspectives in response to the students so that they can never settle too comfortably into a single paradigm, but instead are constantly questioning their own assumptions. In Graff's words "in my own teaching I find myself being a Leninist one day and a Milton Friedmanite on the next, depending on my sense of the ideological tilt of the students. And in classes where the students themselves are politically divided...I often put on one party hat or the other by turns (as well as many intermediate positions), depending on the ebb and flow of the discussion." While Graff continues to elaborate his position very thoroughly, I think that the approach as described above reflects both goals: it challenges student assumptions and it avoids promoting a particular ideological position in class.
Conclusion
I have written a bumpy essay here, that is fantastically broad, with compositionists specializing in each of the sub areas I've addressed. However, in making a statement as to one's pedagogical position, I believe that all of these elements must be included. To avoid considering them in favor of one or another being sufficient is to do a disservice to our students by ignoring key areas of composition studies.
According to Richard Fulkerson’s “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century,” one controversial issue in the discussion of college composition pedagogy has been the “variant contemporary approaches to to teaching college writing” (Fulkerson, 658). On the one hand, teachers who pursue a Critical/Cultural Studies approach, one informed by the type of advocacy pedagogy promoted by Paulo Freire in The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Teaching, 26), argue that the “larger purpose is to encourage students to resist and to negotiate[…] hegemonic discourses – in order to bring about more personally humane and socially equitable economic and political arrangements” (Berlin, qtd. In Fulkerson 660). Richard Fulkerson, in commenting on this approach says that “the course aim is not ‘improved writing’ but ‘liberation’ from dominant discourse” (Fulkerson, 660) . On the other hand, an expressivist approach, characterized by the focus on the promotion of authentic voice and sincerity of scholars such as Peter Elbow (Wenger, 3/2/2009), contends that the course aim should be to “foster a writer’s aesthetic, cognitive, and moral development” by “employing free writing, journal keeping, reflective writing, and small group dialogic collaborative response” (Burnham, qtd. In Fulkerson 667). Others, Current/Traditionalists, even maintain that one might focus nearly exclusively on product, truncating writing to a quick run through of “outline, write, edit, receive grade, do grammar exercises." My own view is that a variant of what Fulkerson calls Procedural Rhetoric that emphasizes “composition as argumentation” while using rhetoric to “introduce students to an academic discourse community” (Fulkerson 671) holds out the best hope for addressing the needs of students as writers and as (at least for as long as they are in college)academics because it engages students in dialectic with the critical and cultural conversations occurring around their topics, focuses on composition without a pre-determined ideological goal, and is extremely pragmatic in that it is equally adaptable to the various disciplines the students in composition courses will eventually pursue.
In his article “Two Cheers for the Argument Culture,” Gerald Graff writes, “argumentation tends to be seen as one practice among others rather than as […] the meta-practice that all academic practices partake of and converge on” (Two Cheers, 66), and I whole heartedly agree. My approach is described above as a variant of the procedural rhetoric approach because focusing on rhetoric does not eliminate the need to actively teach and move through the writing process, nor does it address the role of assessment, the role of the teacher or the role of technology in the composition classroom. All of these elements must be combined and fully considered before I feel one has truly established a holistic composition theory. I make this statement assigning myself two specific requirements for establishing my own position as a scholar/teacher: 1) The theory should have a strong theoretical basis even if that basis is merely used as a point of departure. 2) It should be a pedagogical theory. In other words, a failure to address all the components of a composition course is a failure to have a complete theory.
Purpose of the Composition Course
The purpose of the fresman composition course is to prepare students for the writing the academy demands of them. Elbow is wrong to put it off to later classes (Responses 87) because it puts the students at a disadvantage vis a vis the expectations of the professors who believe that the students know and are familiar with the genre/tropes of academic argumentation. However, Bartholomae is also wrong in his pursuit of difficult texts as fundamental to the course to prepare students for working with them because no one else is doing so (Responses 86) as that is not the purpose of freshman composition either. I appreciate Lindemann's argument for privileging writing and leaving the texts to the periphery (see Lindemann's Freshman Composition: No Place For Literature), and Elbow's call for the primacy of actual class time spent in the act writing. I remember the most productive writing classes I've ever taken (and I am speaking of specific class sessions here) were spent writing, working at a paragraph level (because we could competently produce paragraphs worth writing within a given period), and dealing with the specific problems of our own arguments, style, thought etc. I would privilege argumentation because I believe Graff's argument that dialogic argumentation captures the essence of the most basic academic activities. The freshman composition course needs to balance the primacy of the actual writing process as a practice in the practicality of producing text, but also needs to introduce the They Say/I Say expectation of dialogic argumentation as the basis of the writing students will be expected to do in the academy and beyond. Even after their time in academe is over, they will be better prepared for their professional lives in any field if they can write in a manner that engages other opinions (for support and refutation) to logically promote an idea/argument.
Argument in the Composition Course
Graff's writing handbook They Say/I Say is what I would use as a primary text. I would place argument at the center of the course, requiring students to engage other opinions in stating their own. Contrary to certain objections raised (see Ann Jurecic's "Getting a Clue: Gerald Graff and the Life of the Mind") writing that engages other opinions does not have to be "about" (Jurecic 326) secondary literature. On the contrary one could be taught to write such argumentation without having to touch critical responses at all. It is entirely possible to produce one's own opinion on a given issue (or piece of literature if the professor so chooses) first, and then engage other opinions to frame your argument, to gain support, and to address the other side effectively. The student's own thought is still the foundation of the entire text, and the text itself is still about the issue at hand, not "about" the "secondary literature" (Jurecic 326) at all. The other brings itself in as a support to the student's argument. This places me in agreement with scholars focusing on argument such as Graff and Bartholomae, and leaves me in contradiction to those, like Elbow, who might privilege other forms of writing in the course. Simply put, creative writing, as much as I love it, and as much as lessons can be learned from the processes and techniques that transfer to academic writing, should not be the focus of freshman composition. The personal writing favored by the expressivist approach has a smaller place perhaps, in that I think it is important for the students to be reflecting on their own process as writers and their growth in addition to producing argument. So, I believe their can be a peripheral role for blogging, journaling, etc. that would allow for this reflective piece. In addition, I believe that towards the end of the course as final assessment is approaching, the reflective writing of the student on the course, their growth, and what they've learned takes on an even greater importance which I will address later.
Process in the Composition Course
Focusing on argument does not alleviate the need to focus on other aspects of writing. I believe that teaching/reinforcing the writing process is essential to the freshman composition course. Students should spend time in class actually producing text, and in in conferencing with their peers and with the teacher about their work. Elbow argues throughout his work for the need to have actual writing taking place in the classroom and I agree that the students need to engage in the process in a place that reinforces its cyclical nature instead of focusing on the finished product alone. Most students will have come from high school writing backgrounds that did this (primarily because the high school curriculum, which places all elements of English studies in the same classroom during the same time period does not often allow the time for true pursuit of process). In addition, their other courses in the university will also focus on the finished product alone. In addition to the argument for presenting the true nature of the writing process and Elbow's argument for time in class producing text, I believe that Donald Murray's work on the writing process particularly that on what he terms "rehearsing" and "re-vision" are essential. Introducing the fact that it is the writer's job to revise - every paper, every time - as Tony mentioned in his presentation on Murray is important. Students don't realize this, and high school tends to emphasize the draft and done approach, or if we're lucky a draft-edit and done approach. I also think that an explicit instruction in recognizing the elements of Murray's rehearsing process can be very, very helpful to students, as this is a part of the writing process that, outside of Murray, (and outside of the university for that matter) I have never encountered before. The twining of argument and process in instruction, leads I believe to the fairest and most accurate methods of assessment.
Assessment in the Writing Class
In addressing assessment in the freshman composition course, I turn to three sources: Donald Murray's "The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference," Peter Elbow's "Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process," and the CCCC Committee on Assessment's (Chaired by Kathleen Blake Yancey) "Writing Assessment: A Position Statement."
A writing course must have both formative and summative assessment. Dr. Murray's powerful description of his growth towards the use of writing conferences and his slow removal of himself from a primary position as lecturer/editor in the writing classroom should be required reading for all teacher's of writing. I believe that the conferences described here, in which Dr. Murray uses Socratic questioning to bring out students' own knowledge of writing and of their work or to create a greater awareness of their work is the perfect form of formative assessment. Application of such writing conferences with both the instructor and peers throughout the course, should provide the primary source of formative assessment.
The second area of assessment that must be addressed is summative assessment. Following principles expressed in his teachings on the writing process, Elbow argues for a separation of what I call the nurturer and the gatekeeper roles of teaching. We all have an urge to protect and promote our students, simultaneously, we all have a notion of our responsibility to society and the institution that we work at to ensure that those who pass our courses receive grades that accurately reflect their knowledge/abilities. Elbow suggests balancing the roles by separating them. In taking this approach, the teacher would first engage the gatekeeper, designing a challenging course with thorough assessment that reflects, objectively a high standard that students are expected to meet. This is the role in which the teacher greets the students, laying out course expectations, and, perhaps, even providing a copy of any final assessment to show students where they will be expected to be at the end of the course. Following this, the teacher becomes the nurturer, doing everything possible to ready the students for the challenges inherent in the course and the assessment pieces. The gatekeeper re-emerges at the end of the course to then turn a purely critical eye on the students' final products knowing that he or she has already done all that was possible to prepare students for this point.
A final word on summative assessment is taken from the CCCC committee's position statement. In the statement the authors argue for assessing "preferably...more than one sample written on more than one occasion, with sufficient time to plan, draft, rewrite, and edit each product or performance." This says to me that a portfolio assessment system should be used, not surprising considering Dr. Yancey's chairing of the committee and her extensive work on assessment and the use of portfolios. For summative assessment I would use a portfolio assessment system, to consist not only of a range of student papers across the semester, but of an extensive reflective piece written by the student covering her or his progress in knowledge and skills throughout the course. Such a portfolio would, ideally, replace a final exam in a composition course.
The Role of the Technology in the Composition Classroom
As most students will be producing their text and doing their research on a computer, it is essential that the composition teacher consider the role of technology in his or her classroom. I believe that the teacher has an obligation to review with students, at least briefly, the principles of academic honesty and how to avoid unintentional plagiarism through accurate citation and honest disclosure. I also believe that the teacher should make use of technology's opportunities for collaboration and community. Activities such as discussion boards and blogging, the use of collaborative learning tools such as the google docs program which allows students to electronically access and edit a piece of writing in a shared electronic space, can all be profitably employed. The instructor should remain aware of caveats and forewarnings given by scholars in the field such as Cynthia Selfe and others that technology cannot be blindly seen as a panacea.
The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom
I believe that Elbow captures the conflicting roles of the teacher in any classroom very effectively in the piece mentioned above "Embracing Contraries in the Teaching Process." I believe that the role of gatekeeper is pretty straightforward. What, however, is the role of nurturer? What does it look like in the classroom? I believe that the answer to this question can be found in several areas. Murray's description of conferences included in the earlier section of this essay on assessment is a primary example of the teacher as nurturer. In a safe environment the teacher discusses with the student the strengths and weaknesses of their work with an eye not to summative assessment, but with a focus on helping the student to see where they are (or where their work is) and how they can get to where they want/need to be. The teacher functions in Elbow's words as "a kind of coach (Embracing 337)." I interpret this to mean that we are with students, engaged in the work they are engaged in and working in the trenches of the paper with them to help them improve, just as a coach is often in the middle of the action on an athletic field during practice. It means we need to get very specific and help students with the little things (grammar, syntax, paragraphing, etc.) while also helping them with big picture items such as theses, organization, the development of their arguments, familiarity with various occasions/genres etc. It means that we do (to a reasonable extent) what we ask our students to do, that is, students in a writing course should see us engaged in writing. They should see us as writers as well as professors. This means having the courage to voice your own doubts, interests, goals etc. as a writer where appropriate. I feel that, as described earlier, the conference promoted by Murray is or should be a key component of this role. The teacher then, is both nurturer and gatekeeper: he or she meets the obligations to institution and society by designing tough minded assignments and assessments and holding students to high standards in completing them; she or he meets the obligations to students by working on and between each assignment and assessment with the role of coach - helping in every way possible to improve student performance.
The Role of Politics in the Classroom
As suggested at the beginning of the essay there is a push in the purpose for the composition classroom that I have not addressed. This push, what Fulkerson calls the cultural/critical studies approach, reflects the liberation pedagogy of such academics as Paulo Freire and cites a specific ideological goal of the composition classroom to liberate students from the dominant discourse (Graff, 27). While it has been argued that an ideologically neutral classroom or teaching is impossible (which I concede), I argue that having any such explicitly political ideological goal in the classroom whether openly or not does not serve the purposes of freshman composition. Instead it leads to a focus on the political issues and texts themselves, and rather than teaching writing, the focus of the course becomes at least equally if not primarily the teaching of political thought (see Fulkerson, 665). Such an approach may serve the purposes of other courses at other times, although I would prefer even a naively attempted neutrality to such any approach explicitly promoting any ideological agenda. A teacher as a person in authority can say all that he or she wants that students are free to think for themselves, but if they promote a certain agenda while espousing this idea, they will in fact cause students to either respond without thought in the manner they believe that the teacher wants, or to adopt the position held by the authority figure in the room, who will inevitably by dint of experience be more convincing and authoritative in arguing their position than any of the students (Fulkerson, 666).
I believe that there is an alternative approach that allows us to challenge students' assumptions without imposing our own beliefs. Gerald Graff in an article entitled "Teaching Politcally Without Political Correctness" advocates simply adopting a contrarian's position to each student position. Instead of pushing one agenda all the time, the teacher should find themselves playing multiple roles from multiple political perspectives in response to the students so that they can never settle too comfortably into a single paradigm, but instead are constantly questioning their own assumptions. In Graff's words "in my own teaching I find myself being a Leninist one day and a Milton Friedmanite on the next, depending on my sense of the ideological tilt of the students. And in classes where the students themselves are politically divided...I often put on one party hat or the other by turns (as well as many intermediate positions), depending on the ebb and flow of the discussion." While Graff continues to elaborate his position very thoroughly, I think that the approach as described above reflects both goals: it challenges student assumptions and it avoids promoting a particular ideological position in class.
Conclusion
I have written a bumpy essay here, that is fantastically broad, with compositionists specializing in each of the sub areas I've addressed. However, in making a statement as to one's pedagogical position, I believe that all of these elements must be included. To avoid considering them in favor of one or another being sufficient is to do a disservice to our students by ignoring key areas of composition studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)