1 february 2022: Where to Begin

TORDA'S SPRING 2023 TEACHING SITE

1 february 2022: Where to Begin

1/31/2022

The reading for this evening's class is a mix of texts that, taken together, chronicle significant moments in the formation of Rhetoric & Composition, now more often called Writing Studies, a term that more aptly captures all the various ways scholars in R&C approach their work.

Please post your Reading Responses for this week to this space. Expect that we will read each other's posts and respond to them in various ways during our class meeting on 1 February 2022. If you have questions about what to post, please check out the Reading Response assignment by clicking on this link or by using the drop down menu at the top of this page. What is the central argument or arguments you can trace through the readings for this week?

Remember: You only have 500 words so you will not be able to give each reading the same attention. I know that and honor that.

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.

11 Comments

Megan G

1/31/2022 04:41:02 pm

Since the 19th century, the expectations for the optimal way to produce quality writing have been under intense debate in both the academic and literary worlds. While there are still different existing circles of thought surrounding writing techniques, scholars and writers can agree that writing is an involved process that requires more than just a quick sequencing of words. Writing is often portrayed as a solitary activity, where the writer is locked away in their room for hours allowing their creative juices to flow. The readings this week clearly dispute this portrayal as they instead showcase writing as a process of development and engagement. While writing can be enhanced by technique and structure, its true purpose is to be a catalyst for new ideas and meaning-making.
In “Metaconcept: Writing Is an Activity and a Subject of Study”, over a dozen authors contributed their thoughts in support of “Concept 1: Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Activity”. Kevin Roozen sees the job of the writer as addressing the needs of an audience and collaborating with those who have “shaped the genres, tools, artifacts, technologies, and places” they utilize during their own writing process (17-18). Along with this communal mindset Roozen emphasizes, Heidi Estrem sees writing as an activity with a potential that often goes untouched. While it is important to draw inspiration from the tools of the past, Estrem believes the purpose of writing is to create ideas as she proclaims, “We write to think” (19). As writers think, ideas are generated and meaning is created. Each contributor to “Concept 1” relayed the importance of writing to grow and the many techniques that encourage continuous development.
In “Expressive Pedagogy”, scholars Rebecca Powell and Chris Burnham dive deeper into the personal development component of writing. They acknowledge that professors and teachers of writing must be willing to grow personally, with a goal of self-actualization, to teach at their best. The best educational writing environment has both the teacher and the student with growth mindsets. This personal and professional growth includes tackling ethical and moral obligations, which are essential components of all styles of writing. While personal growth is a central focus on expressive pedagogy, the wider context of social issues must also be considered in the writing process. With the rise of anti-textbooks in the 1970s writing was portrayed in a new light as a “means for meaning-making and creating identity”, contradicting the previous thought of its sole purpose being communication. This brings us back to Estrem’s argument that writing has infinite potential with the ability for each writer to generate new ideas to then make meaning.
If the scholars above have determined the most fulfilling purpose of writing, then how should teachers and student interact in the classroom to achieve this? Author and professor Lad Tobin has valuable experience in both roles and in “Process Pedagogy” notes how each approach has its own benefits and downfalls. After decades spent in the classroom, he sees the value in multiple pedagogies and describes his classroom as a space with “a high degree of pedagogical diversity” (16). He still relies on the structure of process pedagogy but has witnessed the benefits of different methods throughout his career. Embracing a space to explore multiple pedagogies will naturally lead to thinking, generating ideas, and creating meaning.

Olivia L.

1/31/2022 04:55:23 pm

In three out of the four texts, they mention that writing is better and more purposeful when it is "authentic" or "real". They all argue that this cannot be done without motivation, freedom, and collaboration. The ongoing theme and overall argument in all of these texts seems to be focused on the writing process in which students and individuals use. I would argue along with these authors that to be "authentic" in your writing requires you to have your own writing process and motives.
Irene Clark points out that there is no "one" writing process that works for everyone. She argues that we must teach our students to find their own writing process instead of teaching them one process to use. I would argue that this is true. Even as I teach my students now, I realize that they have different processes than one another and they differ from my own process as well. We do guide them at a young age with a single model process to set a foundation, but as they and their writing grow, I think it is crucial that they find their own course as Clark suggests. This will contribute to strengthening their writing. Because no writer approaches each "writing task" in the same way, we can learn from our writing habits to discover what kind of writers we are. To think about the writing process, can make us better writers. Even as I have written this response, I write with my own process. I have four sections for each text and bullet points with notes from that text with their central ideas and arguments. I then take each point and put it into my response here collectively. Everyone has their own process of organizing their writing. Some people, for example, prefer to write their thesis or claim first, others do the opposite. One of my teachers always told me to write my body paragraphs before my introduction, but I felt I needed my introduction first as a ground to what I was focusing my writing on.
Similarly, Lad Tobin talks about the various "rules for writing" that we are often taught. With these "rules", he argues that there is little room for revision or freedom. This argument coincides with that of only having only one process. The outcome is the same: no freedom or authenticity in writing. Irene Clark criticizes the process saying that writing cannot be taught. This all goes to say that instead of writing as an assignment or teaching for an assignment, we must view writing with purpose, as an activity, as a mode of "communication" and "expression". This in turn leads to motivation towards another purpose. Learning to write as a writer and not as a student gives a new purpose which will lead to being a better writer. As teachers, teaching writing is hard and although we teach it as a subject of study, we must recall the motives in order to give our students purpose in their writing.

Sarah Bond

1/31/2022 05:10:21 pm

I am a multi-drafting hesitant revisionist who delays in the planning stage, outlines all my ideas, and fixates on how each word captures my meaning. I see writing as a reflection of the thought that went into it, and in spite of countless writing hours, years of teaching experience, published articles, journaling, and story-telling, I tremble in fear of criticism and rarely enjoy the act of writing. In short, I am a product of the mess of methodologies that continually adapts – or fails to adapt, as the case may be – to a rapidly changing world of literacy studies.
More than anything, this week’s collection of readings points to the tension in the terms and ideas used across composition courses nationwide. The greatest tension exists in whether writing is primarily social or private. While students should be introduced to the value and methodology of private discourse, the role of academic composition is to connect students to their own ideas as part of a larger conversation and community. According to Roozen, writing in the classroom is above all a social and rhetorical activity.
For this reason, Brittons’ characterization of students “as spectators” that “recreate reality” (116) is concerning, because in such a model, language remains primarily idiosyncratic. Perhaps it’s unpopular to reject the musings of bell hooks, but her description of “theorizing” as her sanctuary is her own singular experience and her methodology should therefore be treated singularly. Moreover, writing as reflection and expressivism competes with the realities of academic requirements as well as achievable goals for students who, quite honestly, want simply to pass MCAS and write a substantial cover letter. Most students, of course, need both sentimental and sophisticated writing perspectives (Elbow).
Regarding assessment, Tobin’s approach returns to the collective value of composition: reading student writing “not for error… but for nuance, possibility, gaps, potential” (6). However, he then suggests that teachers are the problem with student interest, since generally, “children want to write.” I wholeheartedly disagree. Writing is hard. All of the supportive feedback, authentic audiences, and engaging warm-ups cannot convince every student that the difficult work of pen to paper is enjoyable, but an effective teacher can convince students that it’s valuable. Tobin goes on to delineate process, pre-process, and post-process pedagogies. For what it’s worth, my classroom (and the classrooms I’ve had across three states, seven grades, and twenty years) employs all three.
Regarding methodology, students need tools (Harris). In middle and high school, students should be required to try out different planning and writing strategies for the purpose of one day choosing their own (Kent & Olson), particularly as genres continue to evolve and emerge (Clark). While this hardly solves the concern for multicultural equity (Burnham and Powell), it does validate the variety of approaches that exist among excellent teachers who seek to reach every learner.
As digital platforms increase collaboration (Bishop) and foster individual agency (Lunsford), teachers can narrow their focus on each writer becoming a better writer, even if their finished products look quite different. Ultimately, it is students who are in process, not their writing, and what they say will undoubtedly have social implications.

Ashley Merola

1/31/2022 08:46:51 pm

Throughout this week’s readings, scholars within the rhetoric and composition subfield of English tackle the topic of process pedagogy and the development of its various theories. Each article addresses the common (mis)conceptions that led to the rise of this particular perspective in the late 1960s, such as the threat of the literacy “crisis,” the definition of “good” writing, and the emphasis on efficiency that prioritized proficiency over growth. Partial to process pedagogy, these theorists ground their analyses in the central claim that writing negates neutrality. It instead requires readers and writers alike (as well as teachers of readers and writers) to actively acknowledge and analyze the persuasive power they possess as part of the process. Irene L. Clark, in particular, provides a comprehensive overview of writing studies that proves “the process movement has not solved every problem associated with helping students to learn to write” (23). In support of this statement, I argue that while the conventional approach to writing instruction in the contemporary English classroom calls for change, the responsibility should not solely rest on the shoulders of those who teach composition courses.

Elizabeth Wardle and Linda Adler-Kassner’s essay, “Concept 1: Writing Is a Social and Rhetorical Activity,” presents a more practical contribution to this conversation about process pedagogy in the context of the classroom. The section written by Tony Scott and Asao B. Inoue, entitled “Assessing Writing Shapes Contexts and Instruction,” asserts that “whatever is emphasized in an assessment produces what is defined as ‘good writing’ in a class, a program, or a curriculum” (30). The premise of this claim - that grading criteria confines student potential for individual success in their writing - connects to the rhetorical role of process pedagogy. Yet, the use of passive voice here begs the question: Who does the “[emphasizing]” when it comes to assessments? One would assume the teacher who created the assignment holds that power alone. In reality, other factors that are out of their control can impact their choices. Standardized tests like the MCAS, for example, often force tenth-grade teachers to emphasize grammar, mechanics, and usage to ensure their students pass. While educators may wish to embody bell hooks’s “engaged pedagogy,” in which she believes “to bring students to voice, teachers must have, and understand, voice,” it is easier said than done (Burnham and Powell 124). Systemic issues within schools that silence those voices will need to change in conjunction with the individual decisions a teacher makes when designing their writing curriculum.

Despite the difficulties faced in composition courses, Lad Tobin fosters hope for the future of the field. His essay, “Process Pedagogy,” offers educators optimistic outcomes when he describes the desired product of process pedagogy:

Students will adopt more productive attitudes and practices (e.g., starting earlier, employing freewriting and other invention strategies, seeking feedback, relying on revision, etc.) that may take time to integrate but that will remain long after the course has ended. (Tobin 12)

This connection between process pedagogy and lifelong literacy thus inspires teachers to improve their writing instruction. Although they may not always have access to the appropriate resources when taking this active approach, the skills their students gain while they grow as writers are worth it.

All in all, these readings reaffirmed my own pedagogical philosophy as someone who primarily teaches composition courses and attempts to plan them with purpose. With further reflection and revision from all forces involved in writing instruction, rhetoric and composition can only continue to reform.

Brian Seibert

2/1/2022 06:56:17 am

One of the central arguments for this week’s readings was that Writing Studies has and always will be constantly changing and evolving. Due to this state of change, even the word “rhetoric” is often misunderstood and misused. Clark defines the term “rhetoric” as “the complex interaction between the writer, the reader, and the context and is therefore neither good nor bad in itself” (P. 8). Most people use that word to mean empty of meaning, causing confusion of its definition.
The evolution of Writing Studies is double sided. There are two entities experiencing texts: the writer and the reader. The writer relays their thoughts, ideas, etc. The reader interprets the text. Since every reader is different, each text is interpreted in a slightly different way. I recall a discussion from my ENGL 500 class in which a scholar (whose name I do not recall) made the claim that every time a word is used, its meaning changes slightly. They meant that every word is used in a different context and has minute variations in each use. Each author in Wardle and Adler-Kassner’s Concept 1: Writing is a Social & Rhetorical Activity, wrote short pieces focusing on very specific concepts of Writing Studies. They all focused on the social aspect of writing and reading where the two entities are linked in conversation through a specific medium. The writer communicates with their audience, sharing their ideas.
Writing does not just appear on paper or on a screen to be read by an audience. There is a teaching and learning process that guides that writing. The method in which it is taught is also forever changing. Clark mentions the approach of the “Process” to teach writing, while Burnham and Powell discuss Expressivism. They even go so far as to mention the anti-textbook movement where students are instructed to use their own language and forget about the rules of English to express their ideas. In my experience, I have learned to write and teach writing according to specific processes. When I was in middle school, I was taught the five-by-five method of writing. That included five paragraphs each with five sentences. The introductory paragraph contained an opening and all of the topics you were going to write about. The conclusion restated all of those topics. While it may seem like a thorough essay format, it produced formulaic, boring writing. Fast forward to my teaching career, I have taught writing numerous ways, depending on the school district I was in at a time. All of those ways were more similar to the “process.” However, as Massachusetts state standards have evolved over the years, writing narratives have been included. Narrative writing should lend itself to more creative freedom, but that is not the case at my school. We use a model called the Narrative Diamond developed by a company called Empowering Writers. The structure looks like a diamond (obviously). The elements are similar to a plot map, but sort of placed on its side. When we teach this process, we focus on one section at a time. They are as follows: Entertaining Beginning, Elaborative Detail, Suspense, Main Event, Conclusion/Resolution, and Extended Ending. While the process directs students to be familiar with many great writing techniques and devices, it creates formulaic writing and hinders creativity.

Maura Geoghegan

2/1/2022 08:28:34 am

The readings for this week presented an interesting background on the history of the study of rhetoric and composition. This is a field I have little background in, so I found it to be helpful to learn about significant movements and scholars in this field. The articles all seem to touch upon the idea that it’s difficult to teach or talk about writing in only one way since it is constantly evolving. Each article presents both pros and cons to the movement(s) they focus on and the different nuances and complexities within them. Even just the common phrase, “writing is a process, not a product,” (Clark 1; Tobin 2) holds nuance since Tobin addresses the fact that process-oriented teachers recognize that students do need to develop a product of writing, while product-oriented teachers also recognize that there are processes that lead to a product of writing (Tobin 7).

Both Clark and Tobin seem to address in their articles that it’s most important as teachers of writing to pull from a variety of strategies and styles since these processes don’t always work for every student or every teacher. Although scholars and theorists may have more contentious views on how rhetoric movements such as expressivism or process should be defined, “the differences in theory are less clear and significant in the classroom, where most process practitioners borrow liberally from research of various kinds at various times in the course for various purposes” (Tobin 10). Teachers seem to realize that theories and movements will continue to be developed and critiqued, but it’s important that students are still given the opportunity to reflect on their writing, the processes that work best for them, and continue to evolve as writers. Even some of the most experienced writers alternate their writing practices based on the writing task they are focusing on. As shown by Muriel Harris’s study, one participant who identified as a “one-drafter” also does some “revising after writing,” while two self-described “multi-drafters” sometimes “tend to revise extensively but… can also produce first draft/final draft writing under some conditions” (Clark 34). Students should be given the same opportunity to explore different writing styles, processes, and strategies so that they can then reflect on when to use these strategies since “writing is created, produced, and used for a variety of purposes” (Wardle and Adler-Kassner). Tobin also advocates for having a “high degree of pedagogical diversity” when it comes to teaching writing because each approach offers its own unique values (Tobin 16). These articles seem to push for a shift in thinking about writing as a more recursive process with a variety of approaches that should be used to help students evolve as writers. There will never be one singular process that is beneficial for everyone, just as there will never be one “right” way to teach or create writing. It will be interesting to see how the field of rhetoric and composition continues to evolve and change, especially as technology becomes an increasingly integral part of education and daily life.

Melissa Batty

2/1/2022 10:23:52 am

Although deeply rich with context, and promoting several ideologies surrounding process pedagogy, Lad Tobin’s “Process Pedagogy,” clearly argues that writing is not stagnant; it is an ever-evolving process where students, academics, and authors, strive to develop and enrich their composition skills by removing the chains besieging their texts from imperial notions of literacy. Lad Tobin’s arguments centers around process pedagogy’s ability to ensure that writers discover and explore what their individual language is and how educators can nurture said language within the classroom setting. Process pedagogy stresses that the emphasis of academic writing is in the hands of students; meaning that students decide how to develop through writing, their voice and identity. The result of this often leading to a student’s self-actualization regarding authorial personage and as social and political individuals.
Process pedagogy is the act of decolonizing academic writing in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The pedagogy challenges the very notions of canonical literary beliefs by showing “that students actually have something important and original to say,” if they are given the freedom to explore what and how they want to write. Tobin argues this is best done through process pedagogy’s emphasis upon a student’s ability to free write, explore their voice and personal narrative, and using writing as a tool of discovery instead of punishment. Tobin’s argument is one of decentering the constraints of typical academic writing and the beliefs behind it, and instead, recentering literacy as it pertains to individuality, positive discourse, and an educator’s ability to form pedagogical freedom with their syllabi and students.
Process pedagogy becomes an act of expression, creating an atmosphere where unequitable educations do not limit a student’s ability to thrive in the classroom. Once students become comfortable with the process, they are able to constitute more “formal” rules of literacy into their writing –– they develop a positive authorial voice before the subjugation of Western grammar stifles their identity. Tobin acknowledges his own amazement at process pedagogy when he writes about first implementing it in his classroom: “I realized that student essays were texts to be interpreted, discussed, marveled at, and that writing students were, amazingly enough, writers,” an assumption that the creators of process pedagogy were aware of from the onset of its development.
Tobin recognizes there are some educators who distort process pedagogy by making it imperialistically parallel: regimentation, abstaining from teaching their students the necessary literary formalities, ignoring the inequitable differences amongst students, and prohibiting discourse within writing and the conversation surrounding it in the classroom. Student writers may be students, but like all learners, Tobin argues that they are indefinite works in progress and process pedagogy is the tool to best support them in pushing toward said progress. Overall, if educators can fight their need to be binary when implementing process pedagogy, they enable themselves to knock down the many walls often preventing their students from successful exploration of writing and self, or as Tobin states, a student’s agency, authority, and authentic voice, a literary unification of identity.

Kayleigh Holt

2/1/2022 01:35:23 pm

In "Processes" by Irene L. Clark the history and different iterations of the "process" movement was discussed in depth. Clark used the familiar phrase, "writing is a process, not a product" (pg.1) as the starting point for her chapter. That was a phrase that I had heard many times myself, and it was interesting to see the evolution of that idea over the last few decades. As writing instruction moved from a more pedantic and disconnected method of teaching to the various process oriented models that we are all familiar with today.
Over the course of the chapter, Clark detailed the many theories and methods that had been applied to the process style of teaching writing. Overall, Clark argued in favor of a process focused method to writing instruction, and cited the many benefits and important developments that had resulted from the process movement, while still recognizing the shortcomings of those methods. Some of the benefits that Clark mentioned in particular were "a flowering of interest in composition pedagogy... the realization that people learn to write by actually writing and revising... and a renewed attention to individualized instruction" (pg. 21). While the main drawback to the process method seemed to be that it did not adequately address issues of race, gender and class.
In Elizabeth Wardle and Linda Adler-Kassner’s “Metaconcept: Writing Is an Activity and a Subject of Study” the concept of “what writing is” was discussed, the main argument being that writing was far more complex and nuanced than most gave it credit for. Something that the ideas in “Metaconcept” had in common with the ideas of Clark in “Processes”, was how closely linked the process of writing was to the individual and to the individual’s own thoughts and abilities. Much like how Clark reminded us “writing is a process”, Wardle and Adler-Kassner wrote that “writing… is a technology for thinking” (pg. 34).
The connection between writing and the individual was again discussed in “Expressive Pedagogy” by Chris Burnham and Rebecca Powell. This piece was an overview of what an expressivist is and what an expressivist classroom would look like. Towards the beginning of the piece, after the authors had explained how each of them found their ways to expressivism, they stated that “it is expressivism’s commitment to individual expression that we believe makes our pedagogies work” (pg. 113). The connection between expressionism and process pedagogy was also discussed in this piece, as the authors reference Murray and his examination of the “three related activities: rehearsing, drafting, and revising” (pg. 115), very similar to the pre-write, write, and rewrite process.
In Lad Tobin’s “Process Pedagogy” we again return to the process method of writing instruction. Tobin discussed his own journey with teaching writing and how he found and began to implement process pedagogy in his own classroom. He emphasized how personal and connected to the individual the writing process must be, and how important it is to think of students as “real writers”.

Matt Cutter

2/1/2022 02:28:33 pm

Many of the texts emphasize writing as a process of discovery. More of a journey of discovery based around a central question than it is a strict application of format or structure such as the standard five paragraph model, for example.

I've often subscribed to this philosophy as well. I've seen many times in my own practice how getting students to treat their writing as a process of trial, error, and revision can lead to some of the best examples of academic writing I've seen from high school level students.

Tobin emphasizes in his article that focusing on the process over the product is far more important. You can't simply guide a student through an essay and have a strong hand in their finished product. They wouldn't have learned anything if you're just parroting what you tell them. I've found it is more effective to teach process so that the students have the tools within them to produce good writing at any time. Not just for one specific product.

Alyssa Campbell

2/1/2022 02:58:08 pm

Upon reading Clark’s work on “Processes,” I was overwhelmed by this notion repeated again and again of the way that time and experience changed the process of writing, and indeed, the way in which we discuss and view the process of writing. Although there were points that I did not fully agree with or that left me confused more than anything else, one part in particular that stuck out to me was the way in which post-secondary education and post-secondary educators greatly influenced how society in general viewed the importance of writing and analyzed the youths’ shortcomings in writing. It is also ironic in a sense that we have constantly been comparing our students to students before them, and yet, they have all apparently fallen short….perhaps the expectations need to be adjusted?

Something that I also found interesting was the emphasis on the connection between reading and writing. delving more into the ideas of writing as a Metaconcept, I was fascinated in this reading by the multifaceted aspects of writing, as it plays the role of both the audience and the author. A part that really helped me visualize this concept was the rhetorical triangle; the text (message), the author, and the audience exist and coexist oh, and one cannot exist without the other. While of course I know conceptually that no author exists in a bubble, it is sometimes hard to remember that we are constantly affecting and affected by others and their thoughts and points of view. This is where I spent the most of my time dwelling, as I found this idea so fascinating. Even the most antisocial writer is not antisocial; rather, by writing, they are participating in a conversation that did not start with them and will continue long after their death. The immortality of written work is a concept that has long interested me, as I almost see the connection between authors that want their words to live on, and people obsessed and driven with a palpable need to maintain a legacy.

Delving more into the concepts addressed in Expressivism and Process Pedagogy, I was able to see these almost as written guides or a form of proof of the ideas expressed in Clark’s work. The puzzle-piece nature of these readings makes sense only once all are read, as they would likely seem to in some ways contradict one another if read in isolation. Though this of course reinstills the Metaconcept that nothing can ever be read or written in true isolation. One paragraph in particular in Process Pedagogy stood out to me. Tobin shares that people around him were asking things like “What time of day do you write? Where? Do you write your first drafts in long hand or directly on the computer? Do you take breaks for snacks? Do you rely on caffeine and other stimulants for energy and inspiration….. I was still working on the think, outline, write, revise model.” This was so interesting to me because I think that people around my age are operating on some weird enmeshment of the two.

Shauna Cascarella

2/1/2022 03:12:01 pm

The readings for this week follow in line with the conversation we had last week about how catastrophic everything is to the writing process in the eyes of the media, theorists, parents, and educators. I was really struck by the fact that each person from the readings had something unique to blame for the issues at hand: textbooks, teaching practices, lack of authenticity, and too much restrictions on process.
I was pretty struck by the “Process Pedagogy” piece and this idea of writing unrestricted. I tend to put this into practice in my classroom quite a bit and opt for substance over form from my students. I, however, have yet to tell students that they can write me just anything. That is going to change for sure. Engaging students in writing of their own intrigue will help so much in elaboration, but I do wonder if the Covid kids will be hampered by their years of restricted writing and Zoom classes. I find my students feeling at a loss for ideas now more than ever. I think it will be an interesting practice to employ, and I am hoping that we could participate in 1:1 conferencing and reciprocally learn about their own writing.
I’ve never been much of a fan of teaching grammar and the rules of writing, because it’s just not my forte. The rules of writing certainly contribute to this notion that freedom is restricted and therefore providing inauthentic products. The idea of students writing without passion is so upsetting to me because I learned to love writing before I learned to love reading. I know my students “like” to write, but they haven’t been given enough options to show their actual interest because they are forced to like and respond to prompts that dampen their passion. To then expect them to be writing technically excellent pieces would be absurd, and so who am I to read with this idea in mind?
Overall the readings from this week (and the conversation from our first week) opened my eyes and my pedagogy significantly. I felt refreshed and reinvigorated and was able to return to work this morning feeling a lot less negative about work. It was a nice reminder that the sky is not falling.

1 february 2022: Where to Begin

Leave a Reply.

ENGL 513

Archives

Categories