"Our first responsibility is to listen with understanding to our students voices" (Lindemann, A Rhetoric, 305).
What do I want my students to take away from our classes? Based on what I've seen so far, they are coming to me with a very basic idea of written discourse, but their grammar is really not that far off, and they are good verbal communicators. What seems to be missing is the belief that writing could ever become a viable alternative to the spoken word - when they begin a written "discussion," it is as if they are being asked to speak a foreign language.
"Our function,first and foremost, is not to tell them what to say or how to express it but to help them find their own meanings and styles" (Lindemann, 305).
So, I guess my goal is for them to begin thinking of writing as just an extension of their thoughts and of spoken-word discourse. Learning is not so much learning as it is allowing them to become comfortable discovering a skill they all possess to one extent or another, one they can use to help them understand they are capable of so much more than they might believe.
Certainly, I will offer them a "toolkit" made up of grammatical rules - and explain to them that any project is easier to accomplish when you own the right tools, but do I want them to memorize the rules and drill them into their brains forever? No - for that, their toolkits can also contain resources such as their grammar handbooks and texts, dictionaries, thesauruses, and even websites (the Purdue OWL site, for instance) they can use for reference anytime.
One of the most important "tools" in their arsenal, I hope, will be an understanding of their own learning process. Along with critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, a habit of self-reflection will help them in the rest of their classes as well as in the rest of their lives.
I like Yancey's idea of using space differently in conjunction with teaching composition - and not just in the digital format. I'd love to have a permanent classroom with walls we could use to create a bulletin board for communication or a "gallery" to display work, using space that might even flow off of the page. In a community college setting, of course, this is not possible, so I'll have to find a way to create a similar feel in a portable package.
I have seen with my own eyes the engaging effects of multimedia capabilities in a classroom, but I also appreciate whiteboards and chalkboards and just using paper and pen as students free-write and work in groups.
For me, teaching is about, being a facilitator, a motivational speaker, and a resource guide as well as an instructor. I have come to believe that creating an nonthreatening atmosphere in which the students have a certain amount of control is important to many older, nontraditional students, who expect their educational experience to be relevant to their lives on many different levels.
"To listen, then, is to profess that student voices matter, matter more in fact than our own" (Lindemann, 305)
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Learning to Teach with Lindemann
I have, perhaps, put this particular blog off until last - because I don't know where to begin, but once I have, I may not stop. Lindemann's A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers has become the book I carry around in my bag in case I need something interesting to read while I'm waiting to see the dentist.
I have also found multiple ways in which the book is relevant to my writing in class and to the ways in which I have begun to look at my lesson plans each week - I've actually read parts of the book out loud to my 090 classes (from the "What Does the Process Involve?" section, she talks about her own somewhat disjointed writing practices - a good illustration of a real writing process for students who believe that writing comes with ease to some people, just not to them).
The "Questions to ask in creating assignments," as listed on Rebecca Wasil's handout are, I have decided, also and awesome guide for us newbies to the world of teaching.
There have been many theorists we have seen presented, many who I knew I could spend a lifetime studying and still not grasp what they were trying to achieve. For me Lindemann is one I will spend my career as a teacher studying (however long that might be) because she makes perfect sense to me.
I have also found multiple ways in which the book is relevant to my writing in class and to the ways in which I have begun to look at my lesson plans each week - I've actually read parts of the book out loud to my 090 classes (from the "What Does the Process Involve?" section, she talks about her own somewhat disjointed writing practices - a good illustration of a real writing process for students who believe that writing comes with ease to some people, just not to them).
The "Questions to ask in creating assignments," as listed on Rebecca Wasil's handout are, I have decided, also and awesome guide for us newbies to the world of teaching.
There have been many theorists we have seen presented, many who I knew I could spend a lifetime studying and still not grasp what they were trying to achieve. For me Lindemann is one I will spend my career as a teacher studying (however long that might be) because she makes perfect sense to me.
The Selfe Who Pays Attention
In our Computers in the Composition Classroom text, Cynthia Selfe has four articles she either wrote or co-wrote. In those articles she talks about rhetoric, about politics, and about literacy and paying attention. In her presentation on Selfe, Cathy Bergin revealed more of Selfe's ideas on technology: urging teachers to "incorporate technology into the classroom," teach students to be "technology scholars," and "be careful" with technology as we teach composition - in other words, once more - pay attention!
Of all the theorists we have read so far who directly deal with the topic of technology in the classroom, Cynthia Selfe seems to have the best grasp on the balance that needs to be maintained. Like Yancey, she urges us not to become "irrelevant," but, in "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones," she and partner Richard J. Selfe, Jr caution that technology could also be a geopolitical landmine currently "[representing] the dominant tendencies in our culture" (Computers in the Composition Classroom, 65) - we need to pay attention on a larger scale both inside and outside of the classroom.
Her "areas of expertise" (as listed on Bergin's handout) also show other ways in which Selfe pays attention to diverse issues ranging from Feminist Theory to Video Games, from Literacy to Technical Writing.
Selfe pays attention in a world - and possibly a theoretical field - in which people too often accept the status quo. She is a role model to whom we would do well to pay attention.
Of all the theorists we have read so far who directly deal with the topic of technology in the classroom, Cynthia Selfe seems to have the best grasp on the balance that needs to be maintained. Like Yancey, she urges us not to become "irrelevant," but, in "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones," she and partner Richard J. Selfe, Jr caution that technology could also be a geopolitical landmine currently "[representing] the dominant tendencies in our culture" (Computers in the Composition Classroom, 65) - we need to pay attention on a larger scale both inside and outside of the classroom.
Her "areas of expertise" (as listed on Bergin's handout) also show other ways in which Selfe pays attention to diverse issues ranging from Feminist Theory to Video Games, from Literacy to Technical Writing.
Selfe pays attention in a world - and possibly a theoretical field - in which people too often accept the status quo. She is a role model to whom we would do well to pay attention.
Bruffee on Construct and Collaboration - Awesome!
One of the most fascinating things I have learned so far as a student of literary and rhetorical theory is probably one of the simplest ideas of all - knowledge is a construct. The first time I really grasped that concept - I know I shouldn't admit this - but, for me, the world of writing turned on its head. When we really understand that words are, by themselves, as empty as Ft. Knox, it opens up whole new galaxies of meaning.
According to our Compbiblio text, Bruffee has been "generally considered the first compositionist to urge consideration of socially constructed knowledge" (36) and he has held that "instructors should use collaboration in the classroom, allowing students to participate in the 'conversations of mankind'" (36) - what a powerful statement - what a powerful thought. If you understand that knowledge is a construct and you are willing to collaborate with others and participate in the ongoing dialogue, you might actually, even if it's only in some small way, shape the "converstations of mankind" - and, in that way, use words that have no meaning on their own to create meaning in the world - how awesome is that?!
Bruffee might just be my new hero.
According to our Compbiblio text, Bruffee has been "generally considered the first compositionist to urge consideration of socially constructed knowledge" (36) and he has held that "instructors should use collaboration in the classroom, allowing students to participate in the 'conversations of mankind'" (36) - what a powerful statement - what a powerful thought. If you understand that knowledge is a construct and you are willing to collaborate with others and participate in the ongoing dialogue, you might actually, even if it's only in some small way, shape the "converstations of mankind" - and, in that way, use words that have no meaning on their own to create meaning in the world - how awesome is that?!
Bruffee might just be my new hero.
With Thanks To and Permission from Dr. Yancey
Dr. Yancey was gracious enough to give me permission to post our e-mail interview here on the blog space, and I have created links from my blog to the digital portfolio websites. Thanks Dr. Yancey!
1. Who were your influences in the field of composition and rhetoric?
This is a great question. When I was in graduate school, it was during the 1970s and into the 80s, so I was an early student in composition and rhetoric. I remember reading Lloyd Bitzer’s article on the rhetorical situation, and even on that first reading, realized that his understanding of rhetoric, especially as it was located in exigence, could provide a critical framework for historical scholarship as well as for curriculum and pedagogy—and it has! Ed Corbett’s CCC article on the open hand and the closed fist in rhetoric was another defining text for me. Mickey Harris’ CCC text on first-draft and multiple-draft writers (and Mickey was on my dissertation committee) was another useful text for me; she drew from work conducted in the Purdue writing center, so we saw it develop in process, and that was helpful. And I liked the way it revised the idea that all writers have to revise. I loved the section of the Cowan and Cowan textbook (Writing) on invention: it was the best collection of pedagogical approaches to invention I’ve ever seen. The work of Judith and Geoffey Summerfield was also influential: they focused on the role of comparison as an inventional framework.
Your question has helped me see that I think more in terms of influential texts rather than in terms of influential people.
Does this make sense?
2. Do you have one piece of work you would consider seminal? That is, one work more than any other that articulates your pedagogy and that you believe has had the greatest impact in this field?
Another great question. I think I’d have to cite two pieces. One is my first edited collection on portfolios: Portfolios in the Writing Classroom, 1992. This edited collection included work from middle school through college, so it was read by a wide range of teachers, and at the end of the day, this book is about curriculum and pedagogy working together in way that fosters good assessment. A second piece that has been more influential at the postsecondary level is my CCCC Chair’s Address: “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” It’s also about pedagogy, but it takes an historical look at rhetoric and composition as a discipline as well, so it has a larger cast.
3. What do you feel (what would you like to feel) will be your legacy> within the field of composition theory?>
Oh gosh, a legacy. That’s funny. I used to tease Brian Huot when we were co-editing Assessing Writing that we and the journal would be a footnote in the history of assessment ;)
I suspect that if I have a legacy, it will end up being something to do with assessment or portfolios (both print and e), and/or something to do with my seeing a shift in composition that hadn’t been fully articulated before and then finding ways to support that shift.
4. In a 2005 interview with Richard Colby, you stated that you > didn't want to use electronic portfolios as an assessment tool "unless, by assessment,you mean a formative evaluation of work to enhance programs"(http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/yancey/yancey.htm), could you explain what you meant by "formative evaluation?"
Formative evaluation is the use of assessment to help students while they are in formation: to help them learn. So responding to writing is a kind of formative assessment. Make sense?
5. What is the current, generally accepted, paradigm for assessinge-portfolios? Do you agree with it?
I don’t think there is one yet. I think what currently happens is that people use the criteria of print to assess portfolios, and I think that’s too narrow a set of criteria. But this does depend on how you see the portfolio, and on how much agency the technology provides to students. I have a CCC article on some of this: if the students are working in a scripted online system, they won’t be able to exercise much agency, and the old criteria will suffice. But my view of digital portfolios conceptualizes them as a composition requiring a new set of criteria—including connections; design; and context. Make sense?
6. Finally, could you point me toward some good examples of electronicportfolios (there's so much to choose from out on the web, I'm feeling a little overwhelmed)?
I think we have that covered, but if you want more, let me know?
1. Who were your influences in the field of composition and rhetoric?
This is a great question. When I was in graduate school, it was during the 1970s and into the 80s, so I was an early student in composition and rhetoric. I remember reading Lloyd Bitzer’s article on the rhetorical situation, and even on that first reading, realized that his understanding of rhetoric, especially as it was located in exigence, could provide a critical framework for historical scholarship as well as for curriculum and pedagogy—and it has! Ed Corbett’s CCC article on the open hand and the closed fist in rhetoric was another defining text for me. Mickey Harris’ CCC text on first-draft and multiple-draft writers (and Mickey was on my dissertation committee) was another useful text for me; she drew from work conducted in the Purdue writing center, so we saw it develop in process, and that was helpful. And I liked the way it revised the idea that all writers have to revise. I loved the section of the Cowan and Cowan textbook (Writing) on invention: it was the best collection of pedagogical approaches to invention I’ve ever seen. The work of Judith and Geoffey Summerfield was also influential: they focused on the role of comparison as an inventional framework.
Your question has helped me see that I think more in terms of influential texts rather than in terms of influential people.
Does this make sense?
2. Do you have one piece of work you would consider seminal? That is, one work more than any other that articulates your pedagogy and that you believe has had the greatest impact in this field?
Another great question. I think I’d have to cite two pieces. One is my first edited collection on portfolios: Portfolios in the Writing Classroom, 1992. This edited collection included work from middle school through college, so it was read by a wide range of teachers, and at the end of the day, this book is about curriculum and pedagogy working together in way that fosters good assessment. A second piece that has been more influential at the postsecondary level is my CCCC Chair’s Address: “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” It’s also about pedagogy, but it takes an historical look at rhetoric and composition as a discipline as well, so it has a larger cast.
3. What do you feel (what would you like to feel) will be your legacy> within the field of composition theory?>
Oh gosh, a legacy. That’s funny. I used to tease Brian Huot when we were co-editing Assessing Writing that we and the journal would be a footnote in the history of assessment ;)
I suspect that if I have a legacy, it will end up being something to do with assessment or portfolios (both print and e), and/or something to do with my seeing a shift in composition that hadn’t been fully articulated before and then finding ways to support that shift.
4. In a 2005 interview with Richard Colby, you stated that you > didn't want to use electronic portfolios as an assessment tool "unless, by assessment,you mean a formative evaluation of work to enhance programs"(http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/yancey/yancey.htm), could you explain what you meant by "formative evaluation?"
Formative evaluation is the use of assessment to help students while they are in formation: to help them learn. So responding to writing is a kind of formative assessment. Make sense?
5. What is the current, generally accepted, paradigm for assessinge-portfolios? Do you agree with it?
I don’t think there is one yet. I think what currently happens is that people use the criteria of print to assess portfolios, and I think that’s too narrow a set of criteria. But this does depend on how you see the portfolio, and on how much agency the technology provides to students. I have a CCC article on some of this: if the students are working in a scripted online system, they won’t be able to exercise much agency, and the old criteria will suffice. But my view of digital portfolios conceptualizes them as a composition requiring a new set of criteria—including connections; design; and context. Make sense?
6. Finally, could you point me toward some good examples of electronicportfolios (there's so much to choose from out on the web, I'm feeling a little overwhelmed)?
I think we have that covered, but if you want more, let me know?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Hugh Burns, Wayne Booth, Aristotle, and Computers
It was like having what Kathleen Blake Yancey calls a palimpsest - layers upon layers of history - right in our classroom in the form of a human being. That is what it felt like listening to Hugh Burns. He introduced us to Wayne Booth who believed, according to our Compbiblio source book, that "scholars understand little when it comes to lectures from fields of study other than their own" (367-68). I don't think that can be said of Hugh Burns who understands computer science well enough to write applications that we still use today, and he understands the histories of rhetoric and of philosophy well enough to make me long to possess his depth of knowledge.
He reintroduced us to ancient concepts still so relevant in this field today. Dr. Burns' presentation, left me longing for a true liberal arts education, the kind it is difficult to come by anymore. We could, and should, take entire courses on the "7 books of the philosopher:"
Metaphysics
Logic
Physics
Rhetoric
Poetics
Ethics
Politics
So often these days, however, we take only what we need to attain a specific degree within a specific field and turn away from the knowledge that might truly challenge us.
I also found his knowledge of Wayne Booth interesting and left wishing I had met the man. Again, we have an interesting character grounded in religion (Mormon) entering into the field of rhetoric; maybe this is the thing that drove Booth to argue for a return to a real rhetoric and not the sloppy dialectic of politicians we have come to associate with the word today: in a spiritual sense, words have great weight and meaning and should not be thrown around lightly.
And, then we have computers and the perspective from which they inform the fields of composition and rhetoric. It is fascinating that so many people in such a distinctly human field as composition resonate toward the technological creation, yet, Burns flows back and forth from one to another easily and has for his entire career.
This leads to a larger question for me, one I'm still meditating on, where is the space in which computers, religion, rhetoric, and composition meet in the classroom? I'll have to get back to you if I ever find an answer.
He reintroduced us to ancient concepts still so relevant in this field today. Dr. Burns' presentation, left me longing for a true liberal arts education, the kind it is difficult to come by anymore. We could, and should, take entire courses on the "7 books of the philosopher:"
Metaphysics
Logic
Physics
Rhetoric
Poetics
Ethics
Politics
So often these days, however, we take only what we need to attain a specific degree within a specific field and turn away from the knowledge that might truly challenge us.
I also found his knowledge of Wayne Booth interesting and left wishing I had met the man. Again, we have an interesting character grounded in religion (Mormon) entering into the field of rhetoric; maybe this is the thing that drove Booth to argue for a return to a real rhetoric and not the sloppy dialectic of politicians we have come to associate with the word today: in a spiritual sense, words have great weight and meaning and should not be thrown around lightly.
And, then we have computers and the perspective from which they inform the fields of composition and rhetoric. It is fascinating that so many people in such a distinctly human field as composition resonate toward the technological creation, yet, Burns flows back and forth from one to another easily and has for his entire career.
This leads to a larger question for me, one I'm still meditating on, where is the space in which computers, religion, rhetoric, and composition meet in the classroom? I'll have to get back to you if I ever find an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
