Amanda's questions for 7-3-18

1.Tobin speaks to the different roles he thinks instructors "play" opposite their students and the way those roles are often received. Of the roles, performer, party host, parent, and preacher, which is the most dangerous to fall into playing too often? Or, should an instructor only play one role all the time?


2.Arola speaks to the "fall of design" in this week's reading. How much truth is there in the idea that the author of the words needs to control the design and form of their display in order to control the meaning of the message? Is the visual as important as the words, and must they be created by one author?

Aram's Qs for July 3

1. Yancey notes that we can't accomplish everything in FYC, explaining, "First-year composition is a
place to begin; carrying this forward is the work of the major in composition and rhetoric." For the students who enter our classes hoping to bail out after the course ends, how do we help inspire more long-lasting writing publics? What can we do to encourage long-term advocacy?

2. Arola's concerns about design, specifically in her use of MySpace and Facebook as examples, reveal similar limitations to imposed writing structures such as the five-paragraph essay. In the last section, Arola examines "Bringing design back." Similarly, for the students who have what Yancey (stealing from the other class) calls a "fixed sense of writer identity," how do we remove barriers so that they can write more freely?

Dorothy Calabro 7/3 questions

1. Selfe’s 1999 article addresses the reluctance (and sometimes outright resistance) to incorporating technology in the composition classroom. In 2018, do you still see this resistance in English classrooms? Why do you think English classrooms resisted (or continue to resist) incorporating technology into the classroom? Is there a certain limit to how much technology should be involved in the teaching of composition?

2. Tobin addresses how we, as composition instructors, must reflect on how we see our teacher-class relationship versus how our students see it. Oftentimes, even if we perceive our relationships with our students to be positive and encouraging, students often feel the weight of authority and perceive themselves to not be in control. How can we find a balance between these two perceptions? Is it even possible for instructors and students to have the same perception of their class/teacher relationship?

Raquel Hollman June 28 Qs

1. In Bartholomae, Lobin, and Fulkerson's texts, the reader is presented with both progressive and old-school methods of teaching composition and grading papers. Which do you find yourself prescribing more to and why?

2. What are some things that you liked about the WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition? What are some things you disliked? How can you compare and/or contrast the objectives listed in this text to some of the concepts presented in the three other articles for this weeks readings?

Pat Imburgia, June 28 Questions

1.     In Process Pedagogy, Tobin states he finds himself “borrowing postprocess language and methods to help students see how texts and writers and readers are always and inevitably embedded in multiple contexts and cultures” (16), while also arguing from an expressivist position that “while positivist notions of agency, authorship, voice, and self may be philosophically naïve, they can still be pedagogically powerful. In other words, it may be enormously useful for a student writer…to believe at certain moments and stages of the process that she actually has agency, authority, an authentic voice, and a unified self” (15). In teaching composition, in what ways, or is it even useful, can a teacher reconcile the idea that every writer is invariably involved in several discourse communities while also working to aid students in finding their own original agency and voice(s)?

2.     Fulkerson notes a contrast between the importance of the role of audience for a text, which he states is obvious, and the concern with other concepts in compositions studies such as “self-expression, discovery, and actualization of the expressive axiology” ( 416). As Fulkerson claims that there is a greater focus on rhetoric axiology than expressive axiology in composition courses, what roles do these concerns play, or improve student writing skills, in comparison to writing with the goal of communicating with an audience? 

Dami (Michael) Aderibigbe



1. What are your thoughts on WPA's formula for effective teaching?


2. Briefly describe Fulkerson's take on how to discover a teacher's dominant orientation.

Annaliisa Wilson's Questions

1) David Bartholomae asks a provocative question in the title of his essay; "What Is Composition and (if you know what that is) Why Do We Teach It?" What is Bartholomae's critique of the field of composition studies and how does he reimagine a course where composition is taught? And what if anything can we take away from his ideas as we develop our own teaching pedagogy?

2) In the conclusion of "Process Pedagogy," Lad Tobin writes, " There is of course value in both (or all three) approaches, and my own current classroom approach shows a high degree of pedagogical diversity (or dilettantism). In most respects, I still remain committed to a process design [...] But I am no longer as rigid or as pure about teaching by not teaching" (16). Having read Tobin's discussion of preprocess, process, and postprocess theories, what aspects of the individual theories do you see being useful in the classroom? Can you understand why Tobin has become less rigid and sees value in all three pedagogies or are more drawn to one in particular and why?

Katherine Kelly 

Questions for 6/28

On pages 20 and 21, Bartholomae begins to question the role of composition within institutions, and the role of composition as something greater than just basic writing instruction in academia. He talks about institutional and cultural pressures to push a certain kind of curriculum and the things that govern how and why schools teach the things they do. I guess my question goes back to Bartholomae’s original thought process in asking whether or not an English department should be more concerned with producing English majors, PhD’s and scholars, or with promoting functional literacy. Does it have to be one or the other, or can there be a focus on both basic instruction and advanced work within a department? Should the “profession” of writing ever try to break away from the institutionalized version of what defines composition?

Bartholomae references student writers as “unprepared writers” who create “unauthorized writing.” On page 12, he even identifies the essay contest winner as an “unauthorized writer.” This leads him into a conversation about how hard it is to truly talk about what makes good writing and bad writing, and how disciplinary boundaries prevent teachers of different departments from engaging in meaningful conversations about writing in general. Is this because composition as a field of study relies on a myriad of methods and best practices for teaching writing? Is it because there is no direct, prescribed way to teach writing? On that note, is it fair for scholars to refer to students as “unprepared and unauthorized” while they admit to the difficulty in truly defining good/bad writing? 

Hera Naguib Questions for 6/28

    1. In the essay “What is Composition and (if you know what it is) Why Do We Teach It”, David Bartholomae critiques institutions whose pedagogy devalues a process-driven approach to composition. Bartholomae   states that “we are trapped within a discourse of error that makes it impossible to praise the student paper that is disordered and disorderly” (16). In his essay “Process Pedagogy” Lad Tobin picks up where Bartholomae seems to be pushing as Tobin engages with his transformative experience of giving precedence to the expressivist version of the writing process within the classroom. In your experience in your own teaching and/or writing, how have you negotiated between the two approaches, i.e. what are some of the concrete ways in which you have encouraged yourself, within your writing or in the classroom, to adopt a more expressivist approach. How has this transformed your own relationship to teaching or writing?  

2. In his reading of the two excerpts of student essay, Bartholomae reads through a silence that is masked by what he perceives as the strict disciplinary measures or rules that stultify the process and product of composition and nearly obliterate the individual perspective. Bartholomae is interested in how the individual voice can challenge the replicated ideas of masters and great men. While I agree with Bartholomae’s assertion and believe it ought to be emphasized in composition pedagogy, what are the various challenges of adopting such an approach and the various ways of dealing with them? For instance, what if a student’s assignment or project hold minimal to no individual relevance? What are some of more concrete ways in which we can teach our students or ourselves to uphold a balance between getting past this silence and maintain a formal remove?   

Keri 6/28

The WPA Outcomes Statement for First Year Composition lists a section on composing in electronic environments and states how it “has become clear over the last twenty years, writing in the 21^st century involves the use of digital technologies for several purposes, from drafting to peer reviewing to editing.” As we all come from different institutions, levels of education, and years of study (I myself didn’t even have a smart phone when I was last a student) I’m interested in learning about what technologies you have been using as a student and what technologies you expect/hope to use as an instructor.  How has technology advancement influenced your writing over the course of your education?

In Bartholomae’s article he addresses Godzich’s argument and how “It is, of course, possible to argue that English departments should only serve to produce English majors and/or Ph.D.’s.” What are the pros and cons of an English department (or any department for that matter) focusing all, or most, of its resources towards English majors with little or no consideration for the student body at large?

Laura Smith Questions, 6/27

1) In Bartholomae’s essay, he presents the argument that criticism is an essential element of a composition curriculum and the revision process. However, as he himself mentions, this creates the potential for an issue of authority, where the teacher becomes “the maniacal English teacher with the red pencil” (17). How could we counter the difficulties of perspective and privilege this might create in the classroom? As teachers, are we performing the criticism of students’ work, or simply encouraging them/leading them into viewing themselves through critical lenses?

2) Fulkerson advocates for (and says that many theorists agree on) a rhetorical axiology when teaching writing. However, he never quite defines what rhetorical success looks like, and even includes an example of where he and his students disagreed on the rhetorical effectiveness of a student paper (422). He observes that how an audience receives a work also engages with other axiologies such mimetics or their own preferences for writing to be expressive. If we are basing our goals for our students on how their work is understood by other people, what does that look like in practice? How are we actually defining success?

Questions for 6/28

1. David Bartholomae states in his article that there is an issue with disciplinary boundaries: that the English professor and chemistry professor simply do not talk. However, the WPA outcomes state—quite often, actually—that FYC (or, CCP) instructors must prepare the student for writing "in their fields." How do we erase these disciplinary boundaries and create a more open conversation/dialogue about writing on campus and in the disciplines?

2. One critique of process pedagogy is its "failure to teach basic and necessary skills and conventions"; however, Tobin cites the argument that the process pedagogies allowing personal writing have their own academic and rhetorical rigor that is not considered by critics. Do you agree that this form of personal writing can have a place in the composition classroom and even replace a traditional rhetorical analysis paper? Why or why not?

Leah Delaney questions for 6/28 readings

1. In Tobin's work, he references Elbow's Writing with Power which notes the distinction and arguably the conflict between creating and criticizing. How might these two skills be at odds with one another? Is there a time when these processes work hand in hand rather than being in conflict with one another?

2. Tobin notes (p. 11) that as process approaches to pedagogy gained prominence, they fell victim to the regimentation of the preprocess approaches that came before them. Is it possible to form a theory of teaching writing that does not become so regimented? If so, how? Is this regimentation a natural bi-product of the process by which we disseminate information?

Chiyon Yu - Questions for 06/28

Q 1. Bartholomae introduces Godzich’s analysis on the way English department was stratified between tenure-track faculties’ more ‘scholarly’ classes and graduate students’ basic or composition courses in the 1980s (19-20). Even though Godzhich’s view is limited, it still represents some aspects of the unique position of graduate students. How do you think the situation meets the undergraduate students’ expectation for the university? Also, how can we, graduate students, define ourselves as teachers who are differentiated from faculty members in the department? 

Q 2. Tobins discusses how the process pedagogy has been introduced and adopted. I certainly agree with the idea of the process that students are considered writers and encouraged to find their way. However, I do also agree with the “preprocess and postprocess teachers” who “devote more class time to discussions, interpretations, and assessments of the works of professional writers” (16), as much as I feel uncomfortable with the definition of writing as “a form of discovery” or “expressivist” act (9). It may be because a lot of writing process of my own is comprised of compiling, reading, and analyzing critical materials on a certain literary text. It makes me wonder what the significance of composition classes is if we separate that part from writing. Can all major classes be called writing classes in that their final project is to let students make up a coherent and comprehensive paper? Does that make a composition class focus on solely 'writing' itself?

John Oldenborg- Questions 6/28

1. 

In the excerpt from Fulkerson’s “Composition Theory in the Eighties” while I agree with the sentiment that writing and reading are “inherently social,” I am a bit hesitant to fully accept the “Rhetorical Axiology’s” emphasis on writing heavily for an audience (414). Fulkerson acknowledges this briefly in the “Theoretical Incompatibility” section with an anecdote about student readers and their response to a paper (422). While the paper in question rhetorically succeeded with said students, Fulkerson does not share the same enthusiasm for it, due to its shortcomings from a mimetic/research point of view. Therefore:

As instructors, how can we help our students to create writing which engages audience without them falling into the potential trap of writing solely to please or even pander to that audience?

2.

What struck me most from Bartholomae’s text were his lamentations concerning our “inability to talk with each other [professionals from differing fields] about writing” (16). This made me consider how we as instructors should approach handling students from different fields of study who will be entering our tutoring sessions or classrooms as students expected to be learning ‘English/Composition.'

Should we guide them in ways which will reinforce the style they are expected to be writing in for their major thus making them better writers in that field, though not necessarily better off in the world of ‘English,' or should we be attempting to better round their abilities in our field itself, in turn pushing them in a direction away from a mode of writing their instructors prefer? It is a reality that many instructors from other major fields complain their students are unable to effectively ‘write,' so how do we best respond to this concern?

David Lowrey: Questions for 6/28

1. In the reading by Fulkerson he says, “a natural-process pedagogy for instance does not harmonize with a formalist axiology.” This seems a little overly simplistic. Is there any way for formalist axiology and process pedagogy to be harmonized into a single paradigm?
2. In Tobin’s article he mentions his anger over a discussion on the postprocess era.  In particular, Tobin expresses fear that professors may assign readings that merely reflect their personal “interests and agendas.” What do you think is the best way to insure that a postprocess composition class does more than represent the personal interests of the teacher? For instance, do you believe a return to the preprocess method of focusing on canonical works is best? Or something else?

Farrah Hersh - Q's

What struck me in reading Bartholomae's article is the piece on career. He spoke about the fact that GTA's were now teaching introductory English courses and tenured faculty were not. In fact, quite a few colleges have gone to this model. Is this a fad because high school teachers have to abide by core curriculum and students are learning the basics? Is it because our incoming freshmen use emojis and acronyms instead of full sentences? How has social media influenced the written word and composition?

In Fulkerson's article the word "audience" is mentioned. I wouldn't think while writing I'd be thinking about audience, unless your writing specifically in terms of film or television or novel. Yet, scholars have an audience of academics. It begs the question how we can write for anyone but ourselves. Is it not authentic if we write for other people?

Nicholas Bon - Questions for 6/28

1. In Tobin’s article, he discusses his first encounter with process pedagogy. He describes Donald Murray’s Teach Writing as a Process Not a Product as reminding him more of Whitman or Emerson than any book about writing he had encountered before. Another of Murray’s books, A Writer Teaches Writing discusses, in Tobin’s words, “cultivating surprise, writing for discovery, encouraging risky failures, and teaching writing as if your students were not students but real writers.”

As idealistic as this might sound for the production of writing and encouragement of students, is this a practical philosophy for generalized writing instruction? Would this need to be adapted to work in an academic setting that still very much prioritizes clear objectives and adherence to preset guidelines?

2. Bartholomae makes the comment on page 13 that the essay in question is “too finished, too seamless, too professional.” What features or stylistic traits of an essay (or other piece of writing) will cause it to seem too polished, and what might a writing instructor do to prevent the proliferation of overly formulaic writing from their students (if this is indeed a problem)?

Samantha Kohlhorst - Questions for June 28th

1.     Tobin emphasizes the importance of helping students develop their own voices in their writing. He argues that teaching composition is “not so much a matter of teaching students new rules or strategies but of helping them gain access to their ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ voice and perspective that traditional school has taught them to distrust and suppress” (Tobin, 5). Should a teacher’s goal always be to focus on the student’s individual voice, or are there instances where more formal writing is necessary and can be beneficial for the student to learn?

2.     Bartholomae describes an excerpt from an award-winning essay as “too good, too finished, too seamless, too professional…organized to minimize human variability and uncertainty in the production process” (Bartholomae, 13). Is this necessarily a flaw in the essay? In other words, does an essay need a unique voice or some mistakes in order for the writing to be considered good?