Reading Response Week #3 (asynchronous class)

9/14/2020

OVERVIEW
For our first asynchronous post, consider our reading for this week on the foundations of first year writing. As you might be able to tell, these first few weeks of class have been about historicizing the single class, first year writing, that embodies what the field of Writing and Writing Studies--Composition & Rhetoric--values, both in terms of scholarship and theory as well as teaching and practice.

WHAT TO POST ABOUT
Thinking about this week's reading in relationship to what we read/talked about last week in terms of process writing and the sea-change that open admissions meant for what a college student looked like in the university, as well as your own experience as either a K-12 teacher or K-12 student, consider these three things:

1) In what ways is a first year writing class/experience in a university a "good?" An asset, a value? In what ways is a first year writing experience problematic?

2) What is the connection/disconnection between what happens in first year writing and ELA curriculum at the K-12 level? What is to be done about it?

3) What does learning about the history and practice of first year writing say to you right at this moment about what Rhetoric and Composition cares about as a field?

WHAT TO RESPOND TO IN YOUR CLASSMATE'S POST
You can focus on one of these points in your initial post. HOWEVER, respond to a classmate posting about one of the above three questions that you DIDN'T post about originally--or didn't post about originally in depth.

Length
Reader Responses should run 300 words for your original post; your response to your colleagues should be no more than that as well, and probably run somewhere around 150-200 words.

HOW TO POST

Click on the "comments" button at the top right of your screen or click on "reply" on the bottom left of your screen.
Fill in the information they ask from you (name and email address)
Use the dialogue box to post your response. I suggest writing your post in word or a google doc and cutting and pasting into the blog post dialogue box so you don't lose anything and, also, so you have the chance to read and revise what you've written before it goes live.
Click the "send" button and you are done.

21 Comments

Katelyn Fitzsimmons

9/15/2020 05:39:40 am

This week’s reading placed a focus on first year composition and discusses how this topic shows up in a university setting, as well as the pros and cons of having a first year composition program. According to Crowley’s article, a good writing course focuses more on cultivating good thought, rather than focusing on the “technical” aspects of writing. We see this trend in the K-12 setting. Teachers, myself included, teach the writing process to an extent, but all in all we are typically looking more at the product. That is just the reality. We are expected to train students to create specific “types” of essays, at least in my district. I think we lack the time and resources to take writing from producing thought influence writing. When it comes to the cons of first year writing programs, Crowley mentions that first year composition “uses an enormous amount of resources and takes up large chunks of teacher time” (1). While this may be true, it is important to note that it's super common that college freshmen come to the university level with some sort of deficit in writing well and a cohesive, I think well planned writing class that is effective can truly make or break a student in their college career. As Kathryn Fitzgerald mentions in her article, there are specific issues in the field of teaching writing including textbooks, which try to reveal the thinking of teachers and we need a more direct line to teachers thinking and classroom practices. Shifting over to Asao B. Inoue’s introduction, he places an importance on creating and revising classroom writing curricula to focus not only on avoiding racism, but also promoting antracism. He states that antiracist writing assessment should have two focuses: (1) defining holistically classroom writing assessment for any writing teacher and (2) Theorizing writing assessment in ways that can help teachers cultivate antiracist agendas in their writing assessment practices. While reading this section, I couldn’t help but think about the MCAS snafu a couple of years ago that involved the horribly insensitive open response question. To conclude, I think that learning about the history and practice of first year writing is valuable to any writing teacher because we as teachers are responsible for crafting successful classes and we should think about how we can apply what we know with what we learn and decide what an effective classroom actually looks like.

Clare Nee

9/15/2020 02:06:15 pm

Katelyn, I agree with your point that Crowley’s article endorses the notion of cultivating thought over mechanics, especially in the final pages of the article when Dewey is brought into the conversation. Since I am not a teacher, I find your comment regarding the trend in K-12 to make sense from an outsider point of view. It’s like you are faced with the choice to either spend your time nailing down the technical aspects of writing, which are necessary for all discourse, or you promote the process of thought. I’d imagine that is a tough choice and every district faces, for the most part, deficits in funding and resources. Moreover, your experience attests to the challenges that K-12 teachers are faced with especially in English studies. I think that this combination of a lack of resources, time, money, etc. is a huge part of the problem that allows this cycle to continue. It’s hard to imagine re-inventing the wheel or the structure of curriculum in the classroom when it appears that some schools are doing all that they can to survive. There is certainly a lot of work to be done.

9/15/2020 01:13:39 pm

This week’s readings focused on the role of first year writing composition courses for students offered at universities and colleges, while also addressing issues pertaining to students K-12 as well. Historically speaking, the first year writing composition classes are taught by graduate students, adjunct faculty, or individuals who are low on the totem pole in the realm of academia, meanwhile professors of literature and “higher stature” are exempt from teaching these courses. The problem arises within this sentiment for two reasons: 1.) it devalues this course as something that anyone could teach by placing it below literature and other courses in English studies, and 2.) Crowley’s article discusses why it is problematic to have any individual who is versed in the subject to teach the course. Teaching is more than merely knowing material. Crowley’s article highlights this shift as a loss of pedagogical approach to teaching. I can relate to this in my own experience as a graduate student, because when I was applying to graduate programs in the New England area, I learned that some graduate assistantships and fellowships are actually teaching 100 level courses to undergraduate students. At first, I thought this opportunity would be very cool since I potentially want to pursue a PhD. However, after stewing on it some more I remember thinking to myself: I don’t know how to teach. How the heck am I expected to take on the responsibility of teaching a course that is very foundational to undergraduate studies as a whole, when I have barely made it out of the lion’s den myself? I was offered a T.A position for just that, but I had my heart set on BSU, so I had to turn it down. Crowley critiques these courses because, while theoretically sound, they fail to address issues and questions of pedagogy aside from the material, and since this course is crucial to a student’s development as a writer and critical thinker, it should be meeting more than the minimum requirements. On the final page of Crowley’s essay he writes, “...that required composition provides faculty with a firm situational base from which to operate an academic empire” (18). While I thought that this idea came out a bit strong, I do understand what he’s saying in the sense that the structural, hierarchical system within academia, which relates to Fitzgerald and Inoue’s works as well. Fitzgerald examines this issue by historicizing newschools within Wisconsin and other mid-western states during the turn of the twentieth century. These schools abandoned the Western ideologies and academic structures, and instead adopted German systems of training teachers. However, these schools relied heavily upon textbooks, which again lost the pedagogical elements of teaching. I thought that it was interesting that one of the opening sentences claims that the “composition requirement perpetuated class distinction” (1). Fitzgerald’s article illuminates the issues that are within academia and the ways in which social, political, and economic standings intersect with education. Lastly, Inoue’s introduction touched largely upon these ideas, and the ways in which writing courses are inherently racist by the ways in which they glorify and idolize the Western, English language spoken by the “dominant” class. I have thought about this before, as a tutor and student leader in a writing center, but I found his approach to the topic to be fascinating. Inoue writes, “I’m concerned with structural racism, the institutional kind, the kind that makes many students of color like me when I was younger believe that their failures in school were purely due to their own lacking in ability, desire, or work ethic” (4). I found his work to be very profound, and he does an excellent job at highlighting the structural inadequacies of academia and writing composition as a whole. Thus, all three articles attest to the issues within the current and historical structures of academia and suggest that within the realm of English studies, that research and literature are more important than writing theory, pedagogy, and practice. Inue, Fitzgerald, and Crowley are calling for changes within the system, since the results are failing to show effectual improvement for students.

Carl Olson

9/16/2020 01:31:48 pm

I appreciated the inclusion about your perspective as a writing center tutor in your response. I think the writing center is uniquely positioned in the college to be able to consider the perspective of students’ writing from multiple angles. A tutor must balance the immediate needs and concerns of the student, the holistic concerns of the student as a writer, the requirements of the specific professors, the requirements of the institution as a whole, AND the philosophy of the writing center. As you mentioned, Inoue’s perspective on antiracist writing assessment is thus important to the tutoring perspective too, not just composition professors, or else tutors may unintentionally reinforce racist policies that could disrupt the ecological balance of the classroom. Writing centers can also serve as a means of educating faculty on these antiracist assessment policies and provide perspective from a very student-oriented focus. I definitely think Inoue’s argument for antiracist assessment is very important, with growing urgency.

Andrea Hicks

9/15/2020 01:52:32 pm

More than anything in this week’s reading, I noticed that the word “holistic” kept coming up, whether in the reading or in my own personal reflection. In Inoue’s Introduction, he brings up the separate elements of a classroom writing assessment ecology. Fitzgerald mentions that pedagogy loses its respect due to its fragmentation--or division into subcategories of theory, practice, science, and art. This makes it seem as though teaching can be compartmentalized, which I vehemently oppose. Perhaps this fragmentation is what ultimately caused the emergence of the methods we use to teach writing today: formulaic approaches to a process that everybody should follow, despite the fact that every writer knows that many different “formulas” lead to success. I connected this back to last week, and again to the disconnect between first-year writing and K-12 instruction. Fitzgerald mentions that students who came from more advantaged backgrounds began their composition with access to a powerful platform, while those who came from less affluent backgrounds spent a year in a first-year composition class, where they were led to believe that they would never be able to write anything of import or value. This ties directly to Crowley’s point that composition studies devolved, for lack of a better term, into Freshman English, and the lack of status in that course is reflected by the overworked, overtired graduate students who take on the courses. Again, the disconnect among all of these factors is not lost on scholars of the pedagogy of composition, and it is in fact blamed for many of the issues in our teaching of writing as it exists today. While I do not have an answer to these issues, I can’t help but think that the value of knowing historical context and truly understanding historical patterns in the classroom is a huge step in the right direction. When Midwestern normal schools became public, they “democratized and expanded educational and vocational opportunity” (Fitzgerald 174), and maybe we can use this as an example. Asao Inoue asserts that creating antiracist writing assessments demands our immediate attention as educators, and this contains much of that historical context. Could educators use this knowledge of history and of what needs to happen in accordance with one another? Could scholars examine the increase in diversity of normal schools in Wisconsin and apply it to what might happen if we look beyond the hegemony of SEAE and accept a wider variety of “good” writing?

Maeve McDonagh

9/15/2020 03:43:32 pm

Andrea, I agree with your critique of our readings about the “compartmentalizing of teaching.” I think a lot of what the people we read this week are saying is correct in theory but does not necessarily translate in a realistic way to actual teachers. Specifically, when, as Crowley points out, a lot of freshman English teachers are thrown into teaching these courses or at least the class is not their primary focus. You also mention how people criticize student writing but then leave the class to less than prepared teachers, which seems like a disconnect to me. Additionally, I liked your point that we can use the history we learned about this past week can be used in tangent with what our goals of writing classes are in order to try to improve our writing and composition courses. I think that there is a lot of value in learning from history and why certain pedagogies were adopted and why they eventually fell out of popularity.

Liz Brady

9/16/2020 02:26:02 pm

Andrea, I also noticed the term “holistic” and the concepts associated with it emerging throughout these texts. I agree with your connection between the compartmentalization of the interconnected aspects of teaching and the emergence of a hegemonic writing process in K-12 education. It’s just not effective to rely solely on theory in teaching, as the practice of teaching is quite interpersonal, pragmatic, and fluid. I mean, look at you folks teaching on Zoom! Theory alone can’t prepare you to teach under circumstances like these, and neither can practice. I certainly think that taking a critical look at the way we teach writing is necessary, and it’s important to voice these critiques from a variety of angles and perspectives given how much really goes into pedagogy.

9/15/2020 03:24:58 pm

The three readings for this week discussed different aspects of composition and the teaching of composition. The reading by Fitzgerald discussed the philosophy of normal schools and the influence they had on writing pedagogies. The reading by Crowley highlighted the issue of the universally required freshman English class used by most colleges. Lastly, Inoue presents the topic of her book in her introduction, which is a reframing of the assessment of writing to be not only not racist, but antiracist. All of these readings can be related to the typical first-year writing class which most students have to take in their first semester of their undergrad. Some aspects of this writing class are positive, such as creating a common foundation for all students in the university in theory. This is especially effective if universities can hire full-time staff to promote an antiracist and fair environment for students to hone their writing and communication skills. Unfortunately, as we read this week, many universities do not hire full-time, qualified composition faculty for these classes which leads to a textbook-driven course that perpetuates the preexisting white-centered structures of our society. These classes are also intended for students across many disciplines, as it is a requirement for all students. Despite this, the course is almost always tied into the English and literary studies departments. Because of this link, the goal of the course tends to be more literary centric than it is relevant to other disciplines in the university. For example, it is much more common for students in a freshman English course to learn how to write about literature than it is to learn how to write a lab report effectively. This not only ignores the previous knowledge of composition students have, which is also more literature centric, but it also poorly prepares students for the many different forms of writing which they will encounter during their college experience.

Diana Cross

9/16/2020 09:23:45 am

Hi Maeve, your thoughts on the structure of a composition English 101 class for college freshmen really stuck out to me. I think you make a really valid point when you suggest the class, if taught correctly, could promote an antiracist environment where students develop their communication skills. The problem right now, is that the focus of the class is not on learning to write (in any number of forms) but is specifically tailored to writing thesis, analysis’, and research papers. Many fields do not require these specific writing pieces so it’s somewhat useless and boring for students who are going into other fields of study and literary analysis is not relevant for them. As I recall, in my freshman English 101 class, we did not have any literary texts tied to the class. We were just required to write a personal narrative, persuasive essay and a research paper. Even without a literary text attached, the assignments were all very constructed and seemed unrelated or purposeless. Similar to what you suggest, I think offering an array of assignments (perhaps choice based) and examples of how composition is essential in every field and what it may look like could be a much more useful English 101 course.

9/15/2020 04:18:16 pm

In their texts, Crowley, Fitzgerald and Inoue all indicated that the Composition and Rhetoric field, often defines itself in opposition to literary studies rather than promoting a universal explication of the purposes and value of the field. Furthermore, the “rationales” for a mandated introductory composition course for college freshmen are scattered at best. Truthfully, prior to the start of my Graduate Studies, composition and rhetoric seemed somewhat ambiguous to me as well. I struggled to understand how an English course might be engaging and lively if it weren’t attached to a literary text to study and analyze. While thinking about the clear disconnect between K-12 and higher education, I’m recognizing that one issue is that English classes in K-12 are primarily rooted in literary studies, especially in high school. Students spend most of the year learning how to find themes, tropes, analyze characters, etc. and receive some grammar instruction in isolation (from what I remember, it was often used as a filler unit in between texts). The underlying message is/was that students had learned how to write in elementary school, and now they should use those writing skills to showcase a higher level of analytical thinking. Speaking from my own experience, the classic college Freshman English 101 course was bland and unmemorable probably due to a feeling of regurgitation of the same information I’d learned in grade school about the writing process.
I feel somewhat uncertain and underqualified to give suggestions about how to combat our education system’s failure to teach composition. One model that I believe has potential is a writer’s workshop- implemented throughout K-12 education and in a freshman English 101 course. In K-12 education, teachers in elementary grades could, in theory, devote several hours a week to a workshop- imploring the expressivist pedagogy with students choosing the subjects they could write about. Although, as students get older, and given the standardized MCAS testing, SAT exam and required state standards, providing students with this time to develop their writing at their own pace becomes much more challenging. Perhaps then, we should be looking at the elimination of standardized tests and statewide standards in order to start to “fix” the disconnect between K-12 and higher education so students can be given ample time throughout their grade school education to cultivate their writing skills.

9/16/2020 08:14:17 am

Diana, I share your same uncertainty when it comes to making suggestions for improvement when it comes to writing in the K-12 education system. I really love your idea bout implementing writing workshops consistently throughout the K-12 classroom. I think this piggy backs well on our discussion last week about how important the process is when teaching writing. Honestly, I think the writing workshop model is the ONLY way to teach writing process, but I do think it is the best way. It teaches students the writing process, not to mention the community it builds around writing. It makes it not so scary, at least in my experience. I also feel like this model allows for a lot of creativity on the teacher facilitation side.

Nicole Moscone

9/16/2020 10:58:30 am

Diana, I agree that my composition course freshman year was unmemorable and mundane as well. I agree with you that in k-12 education we focus all writing around writing about literature. Students read novels and articles, and are constantly writing about the themes, main ideas, and comparing and contrasting different texts. However, they are rarely asked to write about anything else. At my school, reading and English are two separate classes. I teach reading where I focus on reading novels, and analyzing texts with my students. We write about what we read. In English, they focus on writing various types of essays and grammar. However looking at their curriculum map they are still writing about short stories and poems they read in class which goes to show students are never really writing about anything but literature/texts. I think this is because teachers often feel like assigning writing about anything else seems frivolous like “journaling”. I love your idea about adding a writing workshop into k-12. I think this would help us teach students that there are many types of processes when it comes to writing. However, like you mentioned this becomes problematic with standardized testing and the everlasting struggle of finding time to teach everything in 180 days. I have always wondered why we do not look into replacing standardized testing with writing portfolios. It seems we keep reading about how we should grade and value processes over product yet our current system does not reflect that.

9/16/2020 07:46:03 am

Crowley’s “Composition in the University” spoke to the history of composition studies and the role of composition, specifically freshman composition courses, in the University. First year writing courses can be valuable and arguably even needed. However, I never realized how problematic these classes are. Crowley explained that freshman writing courses are often taught by non-tenured teachers, part time faculty, and even graduate students. The professors that end up teaching these courses are not passionate about the field as they are typically looking to teach literature or creative writing courses but those positions are few and far between. Some professors feel “stuck” teaching the dreaded freshman composition classes. Other than these professors being disinterested in the field, they are often hired last minute and receive little to no training or guidance. How can we expect students entering these classes to leave the course a “good” writer when we are not providing them with a passionate and highly trained professional. Fitzgerald discusses the history and the context of composition courses in normal schools which were viewed as professional rather than academic. Fitzgerald states, “As has often been observed, composition in English departments suffers in prestige because of its association with teaching, devalued as a mere service to students”( 187). This is problematic because the English department looks down upon composition due to the association with teaching. What does that say about the quality of instruction and the value the departament places on it? The tie to the English department or literature studies means that most composition classes involve students writing about literature and about a text rather than focusing on refining communication and writing skills to be used for many different subjects and purposes. The idea of an introduction course to help all students refine their communication skills to begin their college journeys is a nice one. I like the idea of a class to help ensure all students have an even playing field since students at various high schools go into college with different academic levels, proficiencies, and prior knowledge. This class can help ensure students have foundational skills to help them write effectively. However, based on the reality of the course and what it has become I do not think it is being utilized in the most beneficial ways.

9/16/2020 01:08:38 pm

Hi Nicole! I think you did an awesome job describing some of the major issues with composition courses in universities. A course that refines communication skills is definitely a great idea; after all, how many students write as their career? Many just need basic writing skills. However, I think you hit on the major issue with this. Students and professors are savvy; they recognize when a class is "lower level," and they automatically assume that it doesn't count or does not matter. As long as there is a level above these students, how can this problem be resolved? At my school, English Language Arts isn't leveled, but math is, and students know that the Pre-Algebra kids are the "smart kids". The fact that this is happening in seventh grade is discouraging and definitely worrisome. It is just another of those things that tends to crush students' confidence.

9/16/2020 12:48:57 pm

As a freshman college student, it never occurs to you to consider whether there has been or ever could be anything different than the required first year composition course(s). These courses are an institution within the institution, as it were. This week's readings give context to the history of the required first year composition course and how students’ writing has been or should be assessed. Whereas Fitzgerald looks to the past in how the unique pedagogy and rhetoric of normal schools shaped assessment of student writing, Inoue looks to an antiracist future by framing writing assessment within the context of a classroom ecology. Crowley’s article gives context for the history of this first year course within the institution and the politics at play.
I see Crowley’s argument for how composition and literary studies are in a strange, symbiotic relationship. One seemingly cannot exist without the other. First year composition courses are viewed as a necessity for students, but they are often based on the humanist perspectives that stem from literary studies. Literary studies become the more prestigious courses, but also cannot function without the funding and professors that the composition classes bring in. But, what is the real function of the first year composition course? Crowley writes that “the course is meant to shape students to behave, think, write, and speak as students rather than as the people they are, people who have differing histories and traditions and languages and ideologies” (9). The function within the institution is to make students fit the mould of what is perceived to be the model student, but this does not necessarily create good writers on a holistic level and can run antithetical to what composition studies, as a scholarly field, views the function of composition.
From my perspective having worked in a writing center at a community college for eight years, I have witnessed firsthand the struggle that this conflict has played within the college as played out through the students. Some students do not understand how writing a five paragraph essay on Joyce’s “Eveline” will help them with writing in their science courses or at their jobs. Multilingual students, especially immigrants, struggle to make sense of the standards of these composition courses in comparison to how they learned to write - in English or any other language - for the first half of their lives. Inoue is correct in that “we define ‘good’ writing in standard ways that have historically been informed by a white discourse, even though we are working from a premise that attempts fairness” (18). Even some of the most conscientious professors with good intentions can fall into this trap, and indeed, it can seem hard to combat when their colleagues and the institution as a whole still hold onto these systemic beliefs and practices. The argument for framing assessment of student writing, especially within these first year required composition courses, as an ecology is apt because it allows us to get a better sense of how it affects more than just students within the classroom.

Erin Slayton

9/16/2020 06:34:41 pm

Carl,
I love the point you supported about how first year composition courses are designed to conform student writing to follow a format template, making “students fit the mould of what is perceived to be the model.” I think this carries up from practices in K-12, unfortunately, which guide students to the ever-dreaded 5 paragraph essay and scripted recitations of TAG-thesis-example formulaic writing. Why do we do this?! Of course, many know the classic answers, which, just like the plethora of reasons why Johnny Can’t Write, have been drawn out and overplayed. As you mention, this kind of composition teaching opposes the strong pedagogy evidenced in Crowley’s argument.

I also find your perspective interesting in the end of your statement, regarding students who are multilingual and how they experience these standards for writing. The questions of “what kind of writing is quality?” and more particularly, “by what standards do we define “quality” writing?” can lead us to expose unchecked biases in our writing assessment. Nonetheless, I think first-year writing seminars can be helpful in that they offer an introduction to academic thought and discursive practices. This positions first-year writing courses as an opportunity to offer students a baseline, upon which further academic work can be built. This pedagogy is consistent with Fitzgerald’s discussion of the original normal schools, designed to expand the range of opportunities, especially economic, that were available to individuals, regardless of class or gender.

9/16/2020 02:11:20 pm

Although Crowley admits that it seems apt to question the necessity of a first-year writing course, it would be false to claim it as nothing more than a vestige of 19th century humanist ideals. Indeed, Crowley quotes David Shumay as writing, “English departments owe their relative size and importance and perhaps their very existence to the demand that college students be taught to write” (2). The first-year writing course affirms the importance of writing and composition as a universal skill in a society that tends to favor more STEM and business oriented skills. And I tend to think that students do need some way to bridge the writing they do in their K-12 education and the writing that’s expected of them in higher education. As someone who didn’t have the experience of taking ENGL101 or 102, I felt like I stumbled through college-level writing for a while before I got the hang of it. Can I be sure that those courses would have helped me? No, but I suppose they couldn’t have hurt.

That being said, the authors we read for today poked enough holes in first-year writing courses that it could have triggered my trypophobia. One of the most salient holes, in my opinion, is how generalized these courses are. After all, students must write in order to learn how to do it, so they must have something to write about. Would it not make more sense for individual departments or even wider colleges (humanities, business, etc) to have their own focalized first-year writing courses? After all, the composition skills that a physics major employs in their academic journey are rather different than that of a history major, no? And allowing students to pursue topics that are meaningful to them in their writing with the guidance of a knowledgeable faculty member would likely be quite effective and would translate well to their field of choice.

Kyle Rego

9/16/2020 05:51:50 pm

OK, Liz. I know that we were paired up last week and I've already read and commented on your work before...but I'm also trying to post on some posts that havent been posted on yet (wow. What nonsense-the way that sounds if you read it out loud!).

Not only that, of course, but you brought up a point that I neglected to address in my original post and I thought this was a good opportunity to get at it. That is, you wrote that there needs to be a bridge between high school and postsecondary school. Agreed. Dr. Torda and I sort of touched upon this in a bit of casual conversation before class began last week. She commented that her freshman simply can't meet expectations because they can't follow a syllabus. I commented that all the things she does not expect to have to do for her students to get the work done is basically "my whole job." And it's true. The college classroom could not be any more different than the high school classroom. What can be done? That is so difficult to say. There is no curriculum coordination from the top down. There is hardly curriculum coordination WITHIN MY DISTRICT. I have no idea what the middle school is up to. They have no idea what the elementary school is up to--and I DEFINITELY have no idea what goes on down there. Those people are gods, godesses, and every diety in between. I have a vision where I could use my "connections" (i.e. teachers I've had at BSU) to form a group of people who can close that gap. What do you think, Dr. Torda? Feel like revolutionizing University to K-12 curriculum coordination?

9/16/2020 06:01:32 pm

Oh...and I 100% had to look up trypophobia.

9/16/2020 05:34:33 pm

I have a hard time with Discussion Boards in general. So sorry that I'm posting so late in the game. I'm not sure if anyone will get to read this, but...

It seems funny (funny? Strange maybe--unsettling? That kind of “funny’) that, in my perception, the foundations of the freshman composition course seems to be shrouded in a similar quality of insufficiency that characterized “Johnny’s” inability to write as we were presented with last week. I just kept feeling as though the higher level education professionals employed at Harvard University described in the readings from this week, wielding doctorate degrees and pomp, found it easy to criticize the abilities that students entered the postsecondary level with while simultaneously unwilling (and apparently unable) to offer a model for any real solution. Instead these professors exhibited excellence in avoidance--in passing the buck. They kicked the can down the road to graduate students like you and me and the students suffered. Handbooks were written. References to those grammar rules were provided as feedback and the bleak winter of freshman composition began. The solstice had come and daylight was at its most brief, overtaken by more darkness than it could overcome.

Of course, that was ages ago. I’m certainly not saying this of you, Dr. Torda. In fact what concerns the field of Rhetoric and Composition, Crowley writes, is “the processes of learning rather than the acquisition of knowledge” (3). She describes the field as one that intends to foster the ability for effective collaboration within its students.

There is just so much good in a philosophy that values the above. It seems like a good course in Composition studies early on should effectively set the tone for a productive and valuable student. A collaborative student who can engage in process and revision is sure to produce their best work. Yet, there lurks this shadowy figure behind the freshman composition course’s shoulder. It begs its students to succumb to standardization. My experience in Writing 101 at Bridgewater State COLLEGE was an exercise in writing to a standard. We learned MLA. I only remember writing one serious paper. It was a research paper that I wrote for the last 13 hours leading up to its due date, missing a full night’s sleep. In the end, I feel like what I learned was dangerously close to what Asao Inoue referred to in their introduction. Did I receive an A after engaging in almost no “process” at all because I am a white, middle class, suburban male who has had access to the standards of accepted discourse throughout my entire career? I’ll let you hash that out.

DISCLAIMER - I took the class I am referring to in 2006. The professor mentioned she was retiring in the next few years. I do not believe she is a member of the BSU staff and I’m sure she made many wonderful connections with other students in other classes throughout her career.

9/16/2020 05:55:25 pm

I found these readings shed a light on both pedagogy of composition, as well as the historical fabric into which writing courses, stemming from normal schools, were woven throughout the 19th and 20th century. In considering my own experience with first-year writing courses at the University level, with knowledge of the readings from Fitzgerald and Inoue, it seems more clear to me now the ways in which writing assessment can be unintentionally biased, privileging the middle class white students.

A problematic feature of these mandated first-year courses is that they are commonly bypassed by students from more affluent backgrounds, usually who test out of the class, when this option may not have been available to everyone. On the other hand, students who are defaulted into these classes can grow dejected, focused on the deficit model, “convinced… their linguistic roughness disqualified them from serious public participation” (Inoue). Often I think these courses can feel remedial, and the instructors designing the assessments are not actively antiracist – not enough value is placed on the students’ funds of knowledge, and the instructors are often not keenly aware of the disparate social inequities students may have been subjected to before university.

The expectation that Standard English will be applied with near-mastery effectively disregards the variety of linguistics and vernacular used by the attending population. As noted in Inoue's Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies, “race…should not be held against a student, nor should it be used to judge the American English with populations of people who do not use that discourse on a daily basis.” Instead, I wonder how empowering the curriculum could be if students are introduced to more discourses of power, taught how to use language and code switching and native tongues as tools for writing, instead of learning composition through prescriptive and corrective measures.

Reading Response Week #3 (asynchronous class)

Leave a Reply.

torda & the 513s

Archives

Categories