My E110 course employs the four modes of communication—speaking, listening, reading, and writing—in the process of composing as students study human progress as a metaphor for composition improvement. Assignments explore journeys, stewardship, technology, and leadership through inspection, reflection, and introspection. In order to present ideas with accuracy and detail, students follow the writing process with specific emphasis on revision, expanding and improving current and previously written pieces. Their writing grows just as humanity has grown. They will look into the past and the present as they explore how technology has changed humankind. Being globally aware twenty-first century citizens, the culminating assignment requires that students carefully analyze the Human Ecology piece and choose the most appropriate medium for publication given their unique audience.
Author: Mary Beardsley
R6 Today’s Classroom
At this point, I am fairly excited about the variety I can establish in my course. Identifying in bits and pieces with each of this week’s professors, I also subscribe to the belief that writing and learning go hand in hand, and a course such as this relies heavily on that understanding. Students will learn a great deal about their writing being objective, logical, and substantiated as they write and revise pieces suited to given situations, audiences, and purposes. In designing this course, I agree with Wardle and Downs that design is outcome based. I first must decide what I want my students to produce. What will they accomplish? What will this course make of them? At the same time, I am also considering Yancey’s point that different times comprise different writers. When I consider what my students will become through my instruction and their dedication, I need to identify what their futures need them to be. When Yancey states that teachers often replicate instruction tailored to their own experiences, I completely understand. I remember my own experience in E110 in 1990. I easily recall that I did not know how to write, how to develop my stance, how to prove a thesis, but I learned quickly in that class. I replicate that instruction in every course I teach so that my students know the importance of the driving statement and elaboration. I even think of the outcome in terms of a lesson I learned in seventh grade: We are not allowed to express an opinion unless we can support it. Right there is one of the most important outcomes: Students must be capable of forming and supporting an opinion. I plan to carry on those lessons while at the same time fostering the composition growth of a very different group of communicators. In my undergraduate experience, I had little need for email; no one wrote text messages; social media did not exist; and a lucky few paid $20 to video conference for five minutes at Kinkos. Today’s students do all of these countless times per day, and each activity involves composition, some organized gathering of thoughts and messages. My intended outcome is that my students clearly state and support their positions across multiple communicative platforms. Yes, they will employ inquiry driven research and compose critical analysis in response to readings. They will compose human ecology proposals and solutions. They will keep a portfolio (our classroom management system even supports electronic portfolios). And just as important as the many more pieces they will create is digital composition, especially with an understanding of developing a responsible, intelligent electronic persona through which each student will publish his or her work. Right now, a host of assignments and publication platforms is swimming around in my mind. I am quite eager to pen these ideas into a sensible syllabus.
R5: What to Write
I like how Reid states the obvious: that writers need to write and that they will only become better if they want to do so. My expectation is that any of my students who enroll in the class will fit the bill when it comes to improving. They know that the course will require a great deal of work and that they need to be willing participants. Reid’s how questions that lead to understanding of rhetoric make very good sense to me. I’d like to adopt that process, in addition to his emphasis on teaching digital rhetoric. The digital aspect of the course seems so important to me, especially when it comes to identifying the influence various media create, which leads me to Shipka’s course. Her emphasis on how language and media can be used differently to influence reminds me of an assignment that our eleventh graders complete. That task would work well as a springboard into a more in-depth piece about the power of media and vocabulary. I foresee a project that requires both research to find data supporting the effectiveness of advertisements, as well a an assignment centered around rewriting and communicating the same message to a host of different audiences. This develops essential critical thinking skills, which align with our Middle States goals.
Finally, Tinberg’s course seems very straightforward to me. I finally came across goals that mesh with my philosophy of developing both academic and work-related writing. It is founded on students’ knowing the importance of purpose, employing the writing process, and providing substantial evidence and elaboration. These are a natural progression of our current program, and students would find great success building these strengths. Two of Tinberg’s assignments intrigue me, too: the essay of application and the proposal. The application appeals because of its practicality, and I truly value realistic, applied composition. Students must develop an understanding of the everyday employment of writing as opposed the assignment style pieces to which they have become accustomed. The proposal also interests me, but I would tweak it to involve research. Students would not only write a proposal, but they would also provide researched evidence to define the problem and researched possible solutions to improve the situation, if not eradicate the problem.
As I read through First Year Composition: From Theory to Practice, I am forming a sharper picture of what will comprise my course. I am looking for a thematic mix of academic and work-related pieces that require a strong sense of audience and purpose. My writers will employ the writing process, write frequently, edit and revise, remediate, and reflect to revise again. To me, the best revision happens well after the piece is completed. Students become more critical of their work after they have grown, so an assignment written one or two months prior is the perfect canvas for revision.
R4
Mathieu’s ideal course intrigues me. I appreciate her thematic approach and the diverse assignments that culminate in a multifaceted research project. Requiring a project such as this one that appeals to the students’ interests likely results in more informed writing than assigning a topic without a personal connection. Of course, and Mathieu made a point of mentioning this, the students must understand the background research involved before interviewing to create a research-based personal history. This type of assignment provides an interesting model that I may emulate to a certain extent. The greater challenge that my students will face is putting the university library to use. With the vast number of sources available on the Internet and through digital government archives, my students have become accustomed to researching electronically. They may have no concept of the beneficial resources available in print from the library. Sad, but true, to many of them, print is dying.
In terms of service learning, I am perplexed at the hesitation to attach this segment to the course. As a board member of a service learning nonprofit, I find it disappointing that the assumption is made to abandon that aspect because a semester may be too short or the first year too demanding. When I address students hoping to earn scholarships for their service learning projects, I am amazed by what they can accomplish in a short period of time while they are also taking AP and honors courses and participating in extracurricular activities. Many high schools require service hours, and many students are, therefore, accustomed to giving time to help others. This builds a well-rounded individual.
Redd’s course offers more practical assignments that provide real world writing, as I like to call it. It focuses on both academic writing and public sector text, and this would definitely benefit students well into their futures. I’m not well enough versed in the studies behind allowing students to use non-standard written English, but I definitely see the value of accepting dialects and cultural differences. It makes sense that students can explore and elucidate better when doing so in their natural linguistic style. What may help her program realize such success is the drive behind it to move students beyond the point where they entered the class. I really appreciate the use of discipline specific writing guides. This course seems to address my concerns is R3 regarding the purpose of the course altogether. Redd’s program exposes the students to a rich mixture of tools and styles, which in turn prepare them for many courses and experiences that lie ahead. Redd states that writing empowers the students, and I whole-heartedly agree. If a student can write successfully for a range of audiences and rhetorical situations, then that student can truly communicate, and with that comes both power and responsibility. At this stage in their lives, students need to take on the responsibility of mastering their voices and contributing to the adult dialogue of life.
R3: The First-Year Course
Studying the courses designed by Anson, Canagarajah, Hesse, and Inoue detailed in First -Year Composition: From Theory to Practice proved interesting. Each proposed components that I advocate, but they also left me with a very important question regarding the purpose of a first-year course.
First, I completely agree with Anson’s emphasis on small class sizes for optimal writing direction and feedback. I have found in my own experience that my writers in smaller classes realize the greatest growth. I emphasize the process and provide live feedback during the composing stage as well as the revision stage. I avoid lecture at all costs by sharing a piece of writing, whether it’s stream of consciousness, advertisement, narrative, etc., and then ask the class to identify what makes the genre. Then we compose a piece of the same genre, and I say “we” because I write, too. When I am stumped, I look at my students’ texts and offer feedback while they compose. When they are stumped, they look at mine and each others’ and do the same. This may be highly successful because the course is a creative writing elective, and all students there have chosen to be there, but most take the course to improve their own style, and it works. The constant feedback and small group size seem to foster significant advancements in composition.
Second, although I have not given a great deal of thought to ESL instruction, I had worked with UD’s English Language Institute many years ago, and that experience alone highlighted Canagarajah’s point about considering ESL students as multilingual instead. I really like that approach because it places greater value on what ESL students can bring to any instruction. Forming the course around variety bolsters the course’s practical application, especially when permitting collaborative research, as is frequently expected in the workplace.
Third, Hesse’s program most closely aligns with what I would consider a fully preparatory writing course. It questions writing solely as text and emphasizes the importance of writing separate from a response to literature. Of course, that is important in an English class, but in a writing class, there must be a more realistic view of writing. Hesse mentions the drive that context has over text, which is definitely worth noting. Based on my own experience, very little writing beyond college arises as a response to literature. Of the many engineers, doctors, lawyers, and even teachers that I know, very few write in response to literature. This touches on Anson’s initial point that “A” students were terribly unprepared for practical writing in the career world even though they could analyze literature with astounding perfection. They were not prepared for the jobs for which college seemed to be preparing them. I, therefore, agree with Hesse that context is very important, and knowing how to compose for varying contexts is even more vital.
Fourth, Inoue heavily emphasizes the labor concept. While I would find this aspect difficult to assess, I do find credence in his key points. The final product, I agree, does not have to be a written report. This relates to my fist response about the importance of digital creations. Where I greatly differ with Inoue is in his insistence that the work have an academic focus. I’m not sure what he means by that, but I immediately disdained this belief because solely academic writing does not prepare students for writing in their future. Herein lies my question: What exactly is the purpose of this writing course? Is it to prepare students for further English course writing? Is it to prepare them for future college level writing? Is it to prepare them for workplace writing? What exactly should a student derive from this course?
R2 Rewriting: A Move to Theorize
Considering the basic research assignment, the most important move a writer can make is that of theorizing. Emerging writers often focus on the task of gathering data, whether it serve the purpose of illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, or limiting. They find themselves lost in a sea of notes and sources, gripping at what they perceive as the strongest quotations to pull them through the assignment. What seems to fall out of place in this entire process is that of theorizing, or developing the controlling idea. At the very center of research writing is the thesis statement, and very few students I have encountered take the time to determine that critically important concept before consulting other texts for support. The issue arises because in order to take a strong stance on an issue, the writer must first be familiar with it. This, in and of itself, requires research, reading at the very least. A thorough understanding of the situation must first be established, and from that understanding comes the thesis, which may be to counter an established line of thinking or even to forward several and combine them into one. Regardless, the bulk of the research paper composition should stem from the thesis as the writer’s thought process buttressed by quotations and paraphrases to lend credibility. Only after establishing the thesis should the writer assesses texts to come to terms and forward or counter as he or she sees fit. The move to theorize must come first.
Missing this move results in a dead paper. Take, for example, a former student who asked me to review his research paper before submission. He had composed a fifteen-page essay elaborately describing a fascinating video game. Page after page, the essay outlined in detail the main character’s saga and exploits, motivation, background, shortcomings, love interests, etc. The essay was essentially a summary. Did he complete the research process? I can’t say that he did—he neglected to determine the purpose of his paper, which must happen before composing begins. He had nothing to prove, no thesis statement. He did make an attempt to assert that the theme song suited the game, but the analysis did not follow, nor did the research regarding the historical and cultural context, which would have granted some credence to his paper. For this essay, I would recreate the “Tracking Influences” assignment from Rewriting. “Tracking Analysis” would be my title, and I would have him highlight analysis, as the original assignment requires, and in the margin, have him write how the analysis proved his thesis. He would see clearly that the analysis was not present and that he could write nothing in the margin because the thesis did not exist. That would be a valuable, eye-opening experience, and it would lead to a true research paper. Above all, the need to theorize would become crystal clear.
Harris, Joseph. Rewriting. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2006. Print.
Goals and Purposes
The E110 goals mesh quite fluidly with my own philosophy. Having employed writing workshops, I fully understand the importance of peer interaction in the writing process. When students genuinely engage with others’ work, valuable and purposeful results occur. Ideally, peer reviewers successfully identify the intended audience and respond to works meaningfully. If all involved have the experience of writing for a variety of audiences and purposes, the process eventuates intrinsically. While my students have served as writing communities for years, their experience largely lies in analytical essays and research papers. It may be a challenge for some of them to break out of their reinforced formulaic, analytical habits. They certainly know the research process, even though many struggle to establish their own sentiments to support. Clarifying the proper use of research presents as a challenge, but once it’s overcome, reading as a writer and vice-versa takes on greater significance.
The one goal that initially stumped me is that of creating print and digital texts. This seemed too simplistic, for I took it to mean merely printed and electronic. Upon reading the Brown Bag Multimedia Resources page, I found clarification. The method of remediation is particularly interesting to me for two key reasons. First, I strive to bring fundamental twenty-first century skills into the classroom. Debates have raged over usefulness of technology in education, ranging from the opinion that iMovie and YouTube projects waste time, to the position that students must learn how to present themselves and their positions across a host of software and social media platforms. Of the two opinions, I favor the latter. It’s been a challenge to convince others in the educational arena that this is more than just a fad that will fade in a few years. Second, I realize that I haven’t been keeping up with the jargon as I should be, especially since I have immersed myself in the world of technology in education. The term remediation was unfamiliar, and I’m disappointed in myself because I understand the concept so well and have used it with my students, but I had no idea it is so critical in collegiate success today. My limited experience in publishing and advertising enlightened me to the importance of mastering rhetoric and aesthetics from the business perspective, especially since the globalization of the marketplace has morphed so drastically since my undergrad years. It’s a completely different world, and today’s students must be digitally savvy in such a way that they can communicate in technological universals. Re-mediating texts truly overlaps and exemplifies the understanding of audience. So many factors, such as background and context, play into the visual or audio remix of a text. Few students grasp this concept inherently. The art of presentation relies heavily on voice and diction tailored to the intended audience, a crucial, controlling factor. Remediation, if guided correctly, builds confidence and success in composition. Through this, students manipulate presentations to suit the audience, consequently mastering the ability to win over any crowd. Shouldn’t this be every writer’s goal?
E688: Seminar in Teaching Composition 