First, I want to thank everyone who has openly embraced this collaborative journey. The dialog so far has been quite interesting. I am hoping that, as the weeks continue, more participants will jump on board.
*Those of you following this blog may be interested to know that there have been other responses from writing instructors. These instructors have contributed to the project but asked that I not post their comments here for a variety of reasons; so, as we can see, the participation is deeper and more complicated, and perhaps more political, than it appears even here.
For this week, keeping last week's questions and responses in mind, I would like to shift gears a bit from one's (awareness of their) writing pedagogy to one's personal philosophy regarding the "purpose" of first-year writing courses. Currently, this question is still debated among scholars in the field: from content, and/or more Cultural Studies' based models of writing classrooms (see Bartholomae, hooks, Bizzell, among others) to content-less classrooms where student writing and rhetoric take precedence (see Elbow, Murray, Hairston, and Ede, among others), scholars remain divided as to what purpose first-year writing courses should serve. Even the course's name has been problematic: from English to Basic Writing to Freshman Comp to First-Year Composition, each name implies a whole set of (un)spoken pedagogical and theoretical implications about the reason(s) for writing courses, the way(s) to teach it, and the content such a course should or should not contain. Of course, some writing pedagogies are more flexible than others.
With this in mind, this week I would like participants to focus on their own beliefs as to the "purpose" and "content" of college-level first-year (required) writing courses. So doing, I believe the dialog generated will hint at just how complicated it is to design a curriculum for required writing courses, particularly because, as a course taught by instructors from varying research interests and backgrounds, different things are valued in different ways by different instructors, causing contact zones within our department as to the structuring and standardizing of courses like first-year writing.
As you respond, please consider the following:
1. What purpose do you see required first-year writing courses serving; in other words, why are they required?
2. Do you believe a required first-year writing course should be content based, or content-less? Why? If the former, "what" content?
3. Building off of question two, what do you think should be taught in first-year writing and how would you teach it?
4. What about your current institution's writing curriculum would you like to see changed and why? What would you, of course, replace it with? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
1. What purpose do you see required first-year writing courses serving; in other words, why are they required?
College writing is different from high-school writing. It needs to be more unified and have more of a pyramidal kind of depth, rather than the less specific and more diverging 5-paragraph essay (shudder).
2. Do you believe a required first-year writing course should be content based, or content-less? Why? If the former, "what" content?
Since I am not ignorant of the basic debate underlying this whole discussion, I take it that by "content" you mean "literature," whatever that means. However, I am Lit, so my response is, of course you've got to have some kind of content in your course. Otherwise, you're not doing anything!
I guess my response comes from the fact that I don't see anything as off-limits to my own writing. I write about essays, films, novels, articles, advertisements, and occasionally stories and poems. I try for the same kind of mix in my classroom, in the hope that something will appeal to each of my students - for the same reason that I generally say the same thing several different ways every time, in the hope that one or two of them will make sense to each of my students.
I also don't think that, in terms of rhetorical or other kinds of analysis, the approach really needs to differ that much for different types of "content." Every text has a purpose, in my opinion, and every text also bears evidence of strategies in pursuit of achieving that purpose. Academic writing also needs to have a purpose, and students have to learn to make decisions about how to go about achieving that purpose in light of the particular rhetorical situation in which they're operating. I can teach that with anything and everything - and I do.
3. Building off of question two, what do you think should be taught in first-year writing and how would you teach it?
Um, again, I think I got that one already. :)
4. What about your current institution's writing curriculum would you like to see changed and why? What would you, of course, replace it with? Why?
I actually think that rhetoric is easier to teach - if you understand it, that is - than literary analysis and therefore ought to come first. With rhetorical analysis, you can get kids to respond to just the strategies and not so much to the content - my understanding of content, that is - thus avoiding some of the problems and challenges of content analysis for the time being, until they've gotten comfortable with argumentation and can move on to that more creative type of analysis.
I also think that our orientation and other teacher teaching should focus more on the big picture in the beginning than it does: What is the structure of the program here? Why is it structured that way? What are the goals of the courses? What must we do in each one? What can we play with to suit our own strengths/ideologies? What do we need to understand so that we don't alienate our students? Where can we go to get ideas or help with various aspects of our teaching, from theoretical approaches to daily activities? Then get into the specific assignments.
I can't answer all of these questions with depth. BUT, I do want to put some info out there.
Purpose of first-year writing is to help introduce and situate students into the discourses of the university. To teach them how to think critically and rhetorically and analytically both as speakers and writers. A large task. Of course we could debate what critical thinking, rhetorical awareness, and analysis really are. I think they are different in each classroom but most of us are touching on these general ideologies in some way.
In my class, I have bounced back and forth with contents, themes, no literature, all readings produced by students. There are benefits of all methods. I like to teach writing early in the semester as a model exercise. Look at good writing. Decide why it is good. Draw conclusions about style, rhetorical awareness, and identify analysis versus claim-making with my students. then spend the last half of the semester entrenched only in student writing (past and current students' approaches to the same genres).
Content that is always present in my class is race. This is my personal pedagogy and won't work for everyone. I always spend some time early in the semester calling attention to cultural myths and assumptive language (drawing from cliches, stereotypes, etc) as non-effective writing STRATEGY. We unpack what strategy means in a larger 'cultural' sense. This is an entire day's work of noticing strategic language in the writing of others (examples i provide). Then we discuss how strategies in writing are rhetorical and this leads us into sentence construction.
I think issues of difference should always be taught in a writing class. Not just how language situates difference as non-normative and as anti-neutral, but also how to avoid this discourse as a writer (how to use language that is critical and reflective and grounded somehow). Again, I remind you this is my personal politics coming out.
Grammar is something that should be in writing classes. Not theoretically, of course, but practically our students don't know it. Therefore we must teach it rather than simply fussing about how "others" are failing to prepare our students. I can't teach all grammar, but I do include one new grammar element each week (comma splices, using the semicolon, etc). Nothing big, just a quick lesson. Style also is important. Sometimes I find myself lost in thesis statement talk...focusing on the particulars without explaining stylistic purpose of these particulars. I want to cultivate creativity.
I think we should teach multiple things in FYC.....this is an opportunity to shepherd students into academic discourse, mentor and teach them through the most difficult stage of their college careers. It is in FYC that we provide small, quality learning experiences focused on critical thinking and writing. We are the ones who fight for these students' rights to be here (and stay here), to get them to tutoring services, to provide opportunities for them to connect with their peers and instructors in a workshop environment devoted solely to the nurturing of critical thinking and writing skills. In sum, FYC should teach students to think critically, write thoughtfully, research ethically, and become engaged citizens in this democracy.
Post a Comment