Response to Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming Democracy and Cultural Studies and Composition

"If all of this is not political in purpose and result, if it is all a matter of "defective methods," of "inadequate technique," it is remarkable with what sustained coincidence we have assigned the worst techniques, the least efficient methods, to the poorest people in our nation. It isn't coincidence. It isn't technique. It isn't the wrong method. It is...precisely the right method. It is a method that assures perpetuation of disparities in power and of inequities in every form of day-to-day existence" (Kozol 93 qtd. in Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming of Democracy).

"In a sense, the cultural studies approach to writing in the classroom addressed the question of what constitutes the content of a composition course with the idea that content is right under our noses, in the culture of everyday life, while shifting the emphasis from the personal experience of the individual to the lived experience of participants in the larger culture" (Cultural Studies and Composition 82).

Response to "Rhetorical Pedagogy" and "Collaborative Pedagogy"

Rhetorical Pedagogy

“Committed to a model of the composing imagination that includes rhetorical invention as a potentially radial associative process, I have, along with others, seized upon the rise of science as a correspondent to the disappearance of rhetorical pedagogy, arguing for the failure of objectivity, Cartesian rationality, and the detachment to account for our complicated perception of a world in flux where matters are never settled….The beginning of a decisive shift to a more objective rhetoric and to connections of rhetoric and composition that eliminated invention…thus enfranchising a pedagogy focused on clarity and correctness judged apart from intention, audience, and purpose. The idea that language is transparent and capable of expressing truth and the instance that its use should be governed by rules of logic…bringing all things as near the Mathematical plainness as they can (Covino, 44).”

{While this response may be a little off topic it is what came to mind when reading the above passage.} I am currently taking “Language in Society” and our topic of study, as of now, is Folklore. I would argue, and I sure I am not alone, that a good Folktale is dependent on delivery. It spans generations, traveling from mouth to ear to mouth, surviving on the imaginations of those who receive it and carried by the intentions of those who repeat it. It is its audience- made up of their voices and hearts.

One can’t deny the rhetoric of Folkore, yet judged in the classical sense, one might venture to say it had none- or a weak rhetorical structure at that. For folklore is not governed by rules of logic, doesn’t express a “mathematical” truth. It’s clarity and correctness can only be judged only in association with intention and audience, inverting the entire structure outlined in the above quote and proving Covino’s point- that a wealth of compositions are lost when truth, math, science, logic, and transparency become the optimal values for composing.

This method of storytelling was nearly forgotten by the public until the 1970’s when scholars rediscovered its value. Interesting enough, this occurred around the same period as the academes quoted in this text (and others) began to expand the definition of rhetoric. Folklore is just one example (of many) of “the composing imagination” that almost disappeared because its rhetorical imagination was overlooked by “objective rhetoric.”

Our shift to “objective” rhetoric not only nearly caused the death of Folklore and, moreover, the death of the rhetorical imagination, it is nearly causing the death of composition in the classroom. That is, in (some of) academia’s attention to clarity and correctness and plainness and truth, students are left composing in stale rhetorical forms, not offered a chance to realize rhetoric in a larger more inclusive sense that responds to an audience in forms other than linear- in the circular, non-“sensical,” uncertain, an ever-evolving patterns of life. With a broader conception of rhetoric, students may view their audience, not just as thinking and rational beings to fill with information, but as feeling and playful beings who find the value in manufactured realties, which have lived long enough to know that “truth” is elusive, and who can find pleasure in stories told outside of prescribed structures. Thus, they can find new and effective ways of communicating, persuading, and composing. (We lose ourselves when we confine rhetoric to rules and, arguably, limit its power.)



Collaborative Pedagogy

It seems only natural that an individualist society such as ours would be suspect of collaborative writing. Perhaps we shy away from another writer’s touch as we do a stranger’s handshake. But by turning the other cheek to collaboration our writing may be robbed of the possibilities of revisions/ extensions the way a foreigner is robbed of human touch when entering a society that wants to do everything alone (but shop).

I can only speak to my personal frustration of having been turned away when I attempted to collaborate at our school’s writing center. Like Howard addresses, the writing center has responded to the inference of plagiarism in collaboration by embracing a “pedagogy of noninterventionalism that precludes both appropriation of student texts and any challenge to teachers’ authority occasioned by questioning their judgment of a writer’s work;” leaving me sitting at a table in the library opposite a person whose face may as well be my paper and whose speech is limited to the words on its page. Nothing is more frustrating than reaching out to collaborate with myself.

Response to
“The Sticky Embrace of Beauty”

“The Sticky Embrace of Beauty” provided me with ways to analyze visuals- introduced me to theories of visual communication. I intend to play with some of those theories/concepts in the Cultural Quilt; specifically, those involving the inherent messages in vertical shapes, curves and central figures. In this way, my quilt could play with movement/energy, permanence/power, security/comfort, as I select each cultural element (and its location on the quilt) based on feelings I wish to evoke in the reader, or reveal of my own.

* * * *

In the English classroom, as in advertisements, picture and text are very rarely independent of each other and, thus, frequently work together to maximize their rhetorical power reciprocally. I enjoy Wysoki’s piece partly because her arguments are applicable to written composition as well as visual composition. Although this is arguably a more subtle point, the essay does not privilege one form of communication over another, but values the effectiveness of both. I will list one instance where I find her critique of visuals so linked to principles of good writing ( as outlined by essayists in our course readings, including those of my textbook analysis) that I feel compelled to comment.

Wysocki notes: “When form is treated as though it is abstract-unconnected to time and place-… then bodies and history are not called into sight or question. And what is most valued is form.”
Form, for written compositions, in many English classes, is taught as void of time and place; as a standard void of value judgments and creation; as a timeless and fixed abstraction. It is not to be questioned. Like Wysocki notes of visual composition and as I apply it to written ones, such a definition of form does not allow students to see how form operates- how their texts are shaped by “the standard” and what it could mean to their texts if they altered that space. In this way, the body of the text, the history of text is not seen outside of the static form and can easily become lifeless. Like visual composers, written composers should be introduced to the “histories” and possibilities of form, so that they may value form for what it adds or subtracts from their works, as opposed to valuing it as a fixed template for production. I say this, because time and again educators ask students to contextualize their work- they must show how “history” contributes to their present argument; they must connect their compositions to space and time. But time and again many students fail to present or see a link between the larger ideologies/constraints of society and those that accompany their work (in form and more). This is because they focus on form- the five paragraph essay, the thesis statement, the creative journal entry- to the detriment of content and context. That is, the standard format of the essay, the length, etc. become the focal points and the reason/purpose for the words on the page is lost- bodies and history remain unaddressed. Consequently, when form is valued as though it is abstract, questioning, seeing, re-contextualizing is absent in writings (and photos alike).

Response to
“Box-Logic”

When I first began reading “box-logic” the themes seemed complex, over my head, but as the article pressed on, I realized Sirc was representing an argument of many (including Ken Symes), with a new approach, certainly, yet he was still singing the same old song.

“As curators of academia, then, we can exploit the possibilities of our status, exposing students to a range of culturally valid forms as well as non-mainstream content; in so doing, we provide our audience with a host of possibilities for worlds and forms to inhabit. What I see in many curricular projects these days though, are a lot of weak, safe shows; shows with less than risky themes, all showing the same kind of middle brow art…perpetually glossing the canon of our permanent collection…It’s pedagogy as docency…We still have not learned from work done by our fields avant-garde about the failure to see our composition classes in the larger world…The assignments I offer, then, are attempts at strategies to allow the voice and concerns of [students] to become a meaningful verbalscape, to find credible genres for preserving…deeply felt truth” (127-128).

Sirc’s argument is one I have seen before; one certainly present in the happenings that, evidently, has been carried through the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and on to the present, so if academia has this burning desire for students to undertake risky themes in writing, to adopt a unique “voice,” to create their own forms as opposed to recreating those of the greats, then why has that desire gone unrealized in the classroom? Why this disconnect between (published) pedagogical theories and classroom application of those theories? It seems as though there are many strong arguments for the infusion of pop-culture, “dramatic situation,” visuals, and “purposeful aesthetics” into written composition/composition classrooms, so one would think, taken all together, that these theories would be applied to classrooms on a much larger scale than they are currently. When does theory become practice? When will academia evolve to incorporate those who speak for it?

Response to
“Toward New Media Texts”

Selfe’s argument for the inclusion of New Media Texts in composition classrooms raises some interesting questions, the first of which is: how do educators and students learn to privilege the visual composition? While I certainly understand the importance of acknowledging the rhetorical “work” that visuals do, and while I understand that schools must not ignore the prowess and usefulness of them (especially considering international communication in this global age), how does one take visuals “seriously” in a writing class? Wouldn’t many students and teachers be opposed to this (as Selfe alludes to in the introduction)? How does one get students to value and put as much effort into constructing a visual argument as they do in constructing a written one?

A mark of academia, until very recently, has been its “written literacy”- a literacy that is respected in society and differentiates academese (to use Bartholomae’s word) from the language of the masses (so to speak). The institution/academia is very much governed by the written word, so Selfe presents teachers and students with the difficult task of learning to privilege a kind of composition that is thought, in large part, to be non-academic (except in art, graphic design courses, and photography, which, again, are fairly new programs) and certainly far removed from writing courses.

I wonder, too, how such coursework relates to that of visual arts and graphic design classes. There are students whose undergraduate career focuses on speaking through art, on composing with images. What would differentiate Selfe’s class from those classes, or is there no need for differentiation? Is Selfe’s proposal marking a change in academia from “isolated majors” to a more “renaissance” education? That is, as we realize the interdependence and interconnectedness of various majors (and of various jobs), will many courses extend beyond the prescribed boundaries of focus and draw from the richness of other fields, and, in turn, will visual classrooms adopt the kind of “writer’s approach to visual composition outlined by Selfe? Will they [arts courses] incorporate a kind of “writer’s memo” analysis of visuals (presented on page 79) to further understand/teach the rhetorical power of images?

Response to "The Writers Memo: Collaboration, Response, and Development

I really took to Sommers' notion of teacher’s as collaborators. He had the following to say: “Recent work focusing on how teachers respond and on alternative ways of responding to student writing argues that the most effective role for the writing instructor in the process-based course is that of guide or fellow explorer or editor…teacher’s should begin collaborating with student writers instead of merely judging them. But doing so can be risky and troubling, especially for instructors who have grown used to the comfortable and powerful role of judge, or for young teachers' insecure about their own authority in the classroom…”

While one could misconstrue collaboration (In the sense that Sommers uses it) to mean that teacher’s should not use their authority to evaluate student writing- as a kind of advocacy for less rigorous grading- I find it is quite the opposite. Collaboration, in and of itself, does not revoke the teacher’s authority. They may still reside in a privileged position during collaboration, as they most likely have more knowledge of the strategies of writing, principles of rhetoric, etc. Furthermore, the collaboration that Sommers advocates for is teacher driven, in that, the framework in which student’s respond to their work, the writer’s memo, is shaped by the professor’s questions/suggestions for reflection. As students evaluate their own writing in this manner, it actually privileges the professor, for the purpose of the reflection is public, not only personal. That is, the students are writing for the professor, explaining rhetorical choices to help clarify their work. The professor is then one of the main audiences, and, therefore, in a position of authority.

I think authority in teaching (for some) has come to mean that instructors should not consult, only pass judgment on students. Sommers, in essence, is saying: hey, students have something to teach you too. For many that is troubling.

But he is not questioning the teacher’s superior knowledge on the issues that shape the curriculum and govern the classroom; he is questioning their superior knowledge of why and how and what students write (insofar as their personal goals and choices.) What Sommer’s writing memo/collaboration does is to clarify those goals and choices of students, so that the teacher may make informed decisions before judging or grading student work- before exacting their authority. He is not asking that they abandon it all together.

If students are to believe that writing is communicative, then what better way is there for teacher’s to demonstrate that, besides collaborating with their students- besides conversing with them orally and/or in writing about their written work. In this way, writing is not stagnant; it does not exist outside of society or prior works or situation. It is ongoing, expansive, and responsive. It illuminates the “work” that students’ texts do. If the teacher is removed from the conversation, the writing only serves the affordance of a grade; it does not serve to engage the teacher in conversation, or, necessarily, work towards the teacher’s understanding. In becoming a real audience member, the teacher offers one example of a reader (of a reader’s questions, responses, etc).

As in life, what better way is there for two people to begin a conversation, for two people to be open to ideas, than for both parties to share a flaw or shortcoming? With the memos/in collaboration, teacher’s admit to not being mind reader’s; students admit to needing help; both begin a conversation open and receptive, desiring to fill in gaps in knowledge. I think this can only improve student writing and awareness.

"Transactional Theory and Response to Student Writing" & "Showing Students How to Asses:Demonstrating Techniques for Response In the Writing Process"

Transactional Theory and Response to Student Writing

“…we must abandon the illusory goal of objectivity in our teaching of writing. It is both fraudulent and dangerous: fraudulent because knowledge cannot exist independent of someone doing the knowing, and thus cannot escape subjective elements; dangerous because it leads us to deny the fundamental fact of writing, which is the effort to make something of significance out of human experience. “

Abandoning the illusion of objectivity is both necessary and challenging. Every day I am bombarded by images; talk with people, read the newspaper, interact with classmates, and everyday some of my biases are reinforced, at the same time some of my prejudices are refuted or challenged. I often try on objectivity, hoping that it will fit, wandering, if, for a moment, I can live outside of my judgments. Ultimately, I fail. I am product of so many things- my family, my communities, my schooling…And even with this realization; I still wish to capture the “illusion.”

Admitting that we are not objective, requires that we recognize that our view of the world is not the only view, and more than that, that it is not the only right view. Objectivity requires that we admit to our own failings, in the sense that we must acknowledge we don’t know and can’t know everything we think we do. Believing knowledge is subjective is unsettling, because it supposes there are no privileged positions, just differing ones. It supposes we are all equals, and we are taught in so many ways that we are not. In this way, the “illusion of objectivity” coincides with the “illusion of inequality.”

With the recognition of bias, we can at least attempt to move beyond, to evaluate student writing based on their attempts to make “something of significance out of human experience.” But to make something significant, to read something of significance in student’s work, we must know that the student is significant. We must put our sense of privilege or rightness aside, for a moment, to find meaning in the language of someone else.

Response to
Showing Students How to Assess: Demonstrating Techniques for Response in the Writing Conference

“In some cases, students are overwhelmed or frustrated by certain problems in their writing. Because students don’t know how to deal with their problems, they may assume they lack the potential to write and revise…”

This observation really resonates with me. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by problems in my own writing, and I think, “there is no way I can do this.” But, if I were to approach my revisions with a similar systematic approach as laid out by Beach, and as I applied to my assignments in Shipka’s 324, I could begin to solve problems in my own writing. Where the problem arises, is how I learn to apply such a revising format to every task. Will it become second nature over time?

As for the role of teachers in student revision, the model that Beach proposes seems to be rather effective in getting students to read and interpret their writing from new and different vantage points. But with the size of today’s classrooms, how realistic is teacher student conference? On how many writing assignments could be it applied? However, his approach to grading and revision is one that is more applicable than others that have been proposed. Beach does not try to destroy the inherent power imbalances in the classroom, nor suppose that students work go ungraded. Instead, he argues that teachers take a new approach to grading and evaluating student texts that would improve writing skills and the student-teacher relationship, without “bringing heat” to the new hire.