Concept Post

After combing through the posts and thoughts of my fellow peers that have embarked on this learning journey with me, I have found a couple similar themes in all of their discussions regarding the most important concepts one should have in mind while taking a course titled “The Teaching Of College Composition.”

One of the most prominent point to take away from my colleagues’ writings is that there is not one distinct ‘English’, and that most of us (and most writing programs in general) have standardized our writing to emulate what would be accepted as ‘academic English’. This ‘academic English’ is especially prominent in the U.S., making the rhetoric and composition journey for ESL/NNSs even more tumultuous and confusing. “Simply put,” Maddie explains in one of her entries exploring Robert Land and Catherine Whitley’s exploration of the evaluation of second-language student essays, “NSs have been trained to write according to the singular rhetorical convention accepted in U.S. academia; whereas, ESL students tend to write in differing rhetorical conventions that inexperienced composition teacher’s might read and analyze as having poorly constructed and unorganized arguments” (Carey 2016). The ESL students who are not well versed in ‘Standard Written English’ (the conventional English we are used to in academic settings) then suffer simply because their English isn’t up to our code. Now one may argue that it isn’t the differences of Englishes that is the issue, but the actual grammar itself, but Maddie debunks this in the same post where she relays that "According to their study, even when ESL students wrote papers free of grammatical errors, they still received a lower grade and lower peer-review than native speaking students" (Carey 2016). Another colleague of mine, Casey Guditus, writes similarly on behalf of paying attention to speakers of English who are non-native. In her discussion of G. Park’s 2012 study of five women enrolled in a TESOL program in America (mainly of Xia, a woman who was taught English in China), she relays Xia speaking of how she felt powerless due to her inadequacy of English (Guditus 2016). Xia notes that even though she was good at her English courses in China, she realized that English in Chinese classrooms was taught in a manner that would benefit students in tests, not in authentic English communication (Park 2012). Casey, in her review on Ferris, Brown, Hsiang, Eugenia, and Stine’s research on how teachers are prepared for/how they respond to L2 students, gives us the result of one of their surveys administered to 129 teachers, showing that only 22% of composition instructors had any sort of training in regards to L2 students (Ferris et al. 2011). “Teachers should individualize their feedback based on student needs, and address not only grammatical errors, but global errors as well,” Guditus points out (Guditus 2012). This is exemplified again in Atari and Triki’s breakdown on the revision of EFL writers. The two point out how the main practice of revision revolves around correcting mechanical errors rather than larger problems with the meaning of the whole piece itself (Atari and Triki 2000). The point that has been made that English and rhetoric come in many different styles, not just the one we are used to.

As we move forward as teachers of college composition, we must not only be aware of that fact, but also our own implicit biases to the kind of English we have been so conditioned into writing and reading.

In one of her blog posts, Linda Chary quotes Shirley Lim as saying “"writing is a collective act, an act that builds on the attempts of other writers to transform silence" (Lim 2010). This statement is in reference to the pedagogy of creative writing and, in the broader context, the pedagogy of writing in general. This brings us to the other concept which I believe should be equally as paramount as understanding that there are different kinds of English and rhetoric, and that concept is that college composition and creative writing are no longer two separate entities. As discussed in class, and from personal experience, more and more faculty for composition classrooms is comprised of graduate students in the MFA creative writing programs. Chary notes that we will “have students from all different disciplines but they will all have to write research papers and do academic writing. It is our responsibility to teach them  how to do it in a way that demystifies it, makes it accessible to them,” (Chary 2016). And with the background that some of us will have in creative writing, there is no doubt that the pedagogy we’ve undertaken through creative writing would bleed through our attempts at teaching college composition. Chary takes a look at Hilary Jank, who, after a two week course on academic writing, describes the pedagogy as “a synthesis of academic writing with several techniques of creative writing, by a professor whose philosophy was that even research writing was creative writing” (Jank 2012). Christopher Giofreda brings up Douglas Hesse’s article “The Place Of Creative Writing in Composition Studies,” to tackle, almost word for word, this exact issue as well. Hesse argues that rhetoric and composition should tackle the ways in which composition studies look at what the writing is ‘about’ rather than what it is ‘for’ (Hesse 2010). If we are to continually engage writing and creative writing as two different entities, then we have teachers versed in one method of writing trying to teach students a more ‘standard’ method, and that will, inevitably, clash. (Note too, how this plays into the first concept above: two different kinds of ‘English’, or writing in this case.) If we don’t pay attention and attempt to bring together the nuances of ‘rhetoric and composition’ and ‘creative writing,’ we stand to create an even larger divide that creates a distinct discursive gap between the two most common forms of writing in academia today.

            As a sort of a final thought, while there may be other concepts and themes out there that my colleagues have not as deeply delved into, that could also prove equally as vital to the “Teaching Of College Composition” repertoire, I stand in agreement with these two concepts as integral components of this classroom experience. Coming from a family background where English wasn’t the main language spoken at home, as well as the creative writing side of the coin, I personally can see the merit in having both these concepts fastened to the core of the pedagogy of composition. Without them, I think there is a vast overlooking of the needs future students may (and honestly, most probably will) have.

Entry 5

Knoblauch, Abby A. "A Textbook Argument: Definitions of Argument in Leading Composition Textbooks." College Composition and Communication 63.2 (2011): 244-68. Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2016. <http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/stable/23131584>.

In “A Textbook Argument: Definitions of Argument in Leading Composition Textbooks” by A. Abby Knoblauch, Knoblauch aims to examine, define, and asses the way the idea of the ‘argument’ is laid out in the rhetoric and composition world. Immediately, Knoblauch turns to Jennifer Bay’s 2002 essay, and uses that as a springboard for her own inquisition. Bay, whose essay uses the September 11^th attacks as the centerpiece for her discourse on ‘argument,’ is adamant in saying that while pedagogy for arguments exist, the same stylistic practices are being taught throughout time while just being repackaged; furthermore, Bay stands to say that the ways in which arguments are taught and played out do not ever bring solutions or end-games to fruition. Knoblauch takes this idea and zeros it in on how argument is specifically taught in college composition textbooks. Based on the current lineage of textbooks, Knoblauch makes the observation that argument itself is being separated from other genres of composition as its own, thus making it seem that the intention of argumentative writing and composition no longer functions as a means to inform, but only to persuade. Knoblauch does not that, on the surface, some composition texts do frame argument as a means of inquiry and discovery, but delving deeper in, Knoblauch reveals that they still harken back to the older notions of argument. As Knoblauch continues her research, she finds that some texts do try to shift the idea of argument from persuasion to understanding, but ultimately it is persuasion that takes the precedence in the intellectual and academic discourse of composition.

I would indeed recommend this article to my fellow peers because as people in academia, and living in a social world where acts of writing are, in many respects, considered political, learning a more discursive foundation for argument seems paramount. In a time where information is being discussed and disseminated, keeping conversations and debates focused more on the exchange of information rather than forcing/conceding a point is a thing that should be understood by writers, teachers and student alike. I feel that if we stray too far from keeping arguments an exchange of information, we then stray from the core idea that language and writing is a tool of communication, not personal gain.

Entry 4

Hesse, Douglas. "The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies."College Composition and Communication 62.1 (2010): 31-52. National Council of Teachers of English, Sept. 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2016. <http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/stable/27917883?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents>.

In “The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies” by Douglas Hesse, Hesse interrogates the relationship between creative writing and composition. Hesse believes that the bridge between to the two is arbitrary, and that with the influx of creative writers coming from MFA backgrounds and other established areas into the scholarly world of composition, that it is time for the distinction to be lessened. Hesse, having had time in the academia and politics of the composition world, also conveys how trite it can be to constantly engage in methodical academic writing that serves no personal purpose for the writer. Hesse likens this to a composer working on a stave with only the same sets of notes. If that composer is only writing pieces of a similar vein, is that composer really a composer? He makes the point, too that engaging in higher critical thinkings of writing is important, and that people studying the pedagogy understand that composition studies and the learning of its teachings refers to the whole of the studies, not just translating composition studies to mean ‘first year composition.’ Hesse is also concerned that when you take creative writing out of academic writing studies, you create two sets of writers that are writing in different genres and unable to understand and interact with the other group’s texts. This dissonance does not bode well for the future of academia. One of the final points that Hesse makes is that composition studies should include discussion about how to engage with pedagogy ‘about’ writing/composition, which means understanding the theories behind composition and the analysis that goes with it, as well as how to engage with pedagogy ‘for’ writing/composition, which means providing students with the means and understandings to be good producers of the written work. Without creating writing in the mix, Hesse argues that composition studies lean far too much towards the ‘about’ end of the spectrum, favoring students who excel in scholarly studies and analysis.

I would definitely recommend this article to my peers. It’s one of the first ones I have read thus far that really articulates and provides concrete substance in explaining the necessity for creative in composition studies. I especially think it’d benefit my peers because it would remind them that, while indeed we are in a teaching of college composition classroom that is most greatly going to be catered towards preparing us to teach first year college composition, composition studies as a whole is much bigger and broader than that, and has more uses than just teaching college freshman proper writing tools and techniques.

 

Entry 3

Dahl, Trine. "Contested Science in the Media: Linguistic Traces of News Writers’ Framing Activity." Written Communication 32.1 (2015): 39-65. Sage, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2016. <http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/32/1/39.full.pdf+html>.

In “Contested Science in the Media: Linguistic Traces of News Writers’ Framing Activity” by Trine Dahl, Dahl compares and contrasts the framing methods used in six different news articles writing about the same subject on research from Nature regarding the geoengineering of the ocean with iron to increase algae and plankton growth which would, in turn, reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Dahl’s argument is that the writers of the articles use framing methods such as “frame setting,” which is the personal interpretation of the issue, and “frame sending,” the relaying interpretations by various public actors that are not writer themselves. The ultimate conclusion is that based on the rhetoric that these writers use, they are indeed actively using these framing methods—a mix of both according to Dahl’s research—and that the lens in which each of the article was written under was not an arbitrary opinion.

I don’t see myself recommended this article to my fellow peers. It was only mildly interesting and I was a little disappointed myself in the ways in which the arguments were framed, discussed and concluded upon. The conclusion Dahl came to was nothing paramount or ground-breaking either. We all know that media and news have been framed and have had biases for decades, and I was hoping Dahl would give us more insight as to how the rhetoric that outlets use influences framing/how effective are they. I also don’t think this information would be terribly beneficial from a teaching standpoint. While I do see the validity in students learning that what they consume through the media isn’t completely neutral, I think for the purposes of a comp class that doesn’t necessarily fit the content. (I can see arguments against that, though.) Furthermore, I feel that there are better texts out there that could teach students rhetoric strategies in their writing as well as understanding how it works in other writings, rather than just looking at other writing and trying to discern what’s happening there.

Entry 2

Blancato, Michael, and Chad Iwertz. "“Are the Instructors Going to Teach Us Anything?”: Conceptualizing Student and Teacher Roles in the “Rhetorical Composing” MOOC." Computers And Composition 42 (2016): 47-58.Elsevier. Web. 18 Sept. 2016. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461515300153>.

In “Are the Instructors Going to Teach Us Anything?”: Conceptualizing Student and Teacher Roles in the “Rhetorical Composing” MOOC.", Blancato and Iwertz examine the effectiveness of an MOOC (massive open online course) on Rhetoric Composition at the Ohio State and critique the structure of these classes in the way they assign roles to students and teachers, as well as how the perceived agency of the participants affect the way that knowledge is disseminated.

Blancato and Iwertz explain that there are usually two basic modes for MOOC: xMOOC and cMOOC, the former being a set-up where there is a strict instructor-student hierarchy and most of the knowledge is being handed down from the instructor (the expert) to the students, and the latter is where there is more of a discussion between the community of students and they are the primary medium through which knowledge is transmitted. After assessing the questions and needs of students, the conclusion that Blancato and Iwertz come to is that a strict focus on either style isn’t very beneficial to students. Rather, they propose that attention must be paid to the MOOC so that it takes on aspects of both styles. Their reasoning is that when using an xMOOC, students can feel alienated in how much agency they have in the information and knowledge they are receiving, as if they are at a shortcoming of knowledge in comparison to the instructor, and in a cMOOC, students can often feel lost or that they aren’t learning anything without some guidance from an instructor. In a perfect mix of the two, there is ample discussion and collaboration between the students on what they’re learning, but also consolidation and affirmation from the instructor.

I would definitely, definitely recommend this article to my peers, because I think it is a meta-analysis of what we’re doing now in our classroom, just on a smaller scale. I think that it’s important to assess how content and sure we feel about the information we’re receiving and if we believe that the propagation of knowledge in the classroom is sufficient enough to give us a solid understanding of the material we’re consuming. Especially, too, with the rise of the internet phenomenon allowing masses to take college classes from a distance, often not face to face, it’s extremely important to analyze the effectiveness of these classes before there is a potential overhaul to make MOOC’s (and somewhat similar style of classes) the standard mode of teaching rather than the traditional method.