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?

R3: Adding to the Mix

R3: Adding to the Mix

This second set of articles from First Year Composition has certainly provided me with additional ideas for components of my own E110 course. However, I have to admit that I often feel like I am in a Chinese restaurant choosing some items from column A and some from column B. As the deadline for the initial outline for our course is rapidly approaching, I am apprehensive whether all of these components that I hope to integrate will come together in a logical and cohesive way. I am also beginning to wonder how the vast difference in the actual class meeting time and opportunities for individual and/or small group conferences between the typical collegiate setting and my own high school situation will affect the decisions that I will have to make in regard to course content, structure, and procedures.
Keeping all of these concerns in the back of my mind, I am intrigued by many of the course elements described by each of the four authors. I particularly liked Paula Mathieu’s name assignment, belief essay and extension, interview project, and letter assignments. I also feel that at this point her overall structure of revolving the assignments around the question, “To what extent is language powerful or not?” seems to be the most logical way to organize my own wide variety of course ideas. I agree with Mathieu’s contention that as James Zebroski points out there is “a need for teachers to model ideas of coherent thinking through the writing assignments we write.” I think that her name assignment would be an interesting one for the students to begin the course with even though many of them will have known each other for three years. It would also set the groundwork for understanding the nature of writing for a local audience. The “What Do You Believe?” assignment seems to be a natural extension of providing the students with an opportunity to write on a topic on which they should feel confident in expressing their thoughts and adds the additional requirement of supporting their opinions with specific examples from their lives and experiences. Adding visual description to either of these first two assignments, as Mathieu suggests, would be an excellent way to have the students see the value of and power in making substantive revisions to their writing. I also enjoyed Mathieu’s description of her storytelling unit. I like the idea of students gathering primary research through oral interviews and enhancing it with extensive background research. I don’t believe that the students will have had much experience with gathering primary material and I think that having them combine these details with their own background research will give them a greater sense of crafting the project instead of just regurgitating research material. Hopefully the assignment will also give the students a sense of pride because their writing will help to keep this oral history alive for future generations. I also hope to incorporate the last two elements of Mathieu’s course material: Writing a Letter You’ll Never Send and Portfolio Letter. I had a very profound personal experience with writing a letter to my husband’s best friend when he was accidentally crushed by two railroad cars while working for Amtrak. Being able to write the letter and slip it into his coffin (with the permission of his wife) helped me to deal with the intense grief that I felt at losing someone who had become like a brother to me. I like the idea that the students will write the letter and then will reflect on and report on just the process of writing the letter. This letter as well as the portfolio letter in which the students reflect on the work they have done throughout the course should certainly help to emphasize and make them more consciously aware of the power of writing.
Other possible activities that I have gleaned from this set of articles are the book review and research analysis assignments explained by Teresa Redd and the group presentations described by Jody Shipka. Since I assume that I will still be required to hold my students accountable for their required summer reading, the 500-word book review could fulfill that requirement. I also really like the idea of having the students submit the review to Amazon.com. This would provide the students with a real-world application of their writing skills. Redd’s interdisciplinary analysis assignment which requires the students to submit a 500-word analysis of one piece of their research data would also be a beneficial assignment to consider for my course. Finally, I am interested in considering a group presentation component that Shipka outlines in her article. I am a firm believer in allowing the students to lead the class in a productive and thought provoking way. I especially agree with Shipka that the presentation should require the students to extend or enrich the issues raised by the assigned readings through an in-class activity. The other elements of this project as outlined in the article: the conference with the instructor one week before the presentation and the follow-up individual reflection are also important to include. My only quandary is what assigned readings to require for this component. This will take some additional thought and exploration.
All of the articles from this text have certainly provided a wide variety of assignment suggestions and structural philosophies. Now I just have to solidify in my mind the direction and scope of my own future course. It won’t be the first time that I have taken a leap of faith as an educator and I am sure that it won’t be the last time either.

R3: Theme for Composition (B?)

“The instructor said,

Go home and write
a page tonight.
And let that page come out of you—
Then, it will be true.”

-Langston Hughes, “Theme for English B”

Langston’s first assignment for English B (and his submission) seemed so idealistic to me.  A professor posing the same assignment to a class of 30 students would surely be lucky to get even 1 response like Langston’s (I thought).  But with a little more direction (“…a page tonight [about how powerful language can be].”) and a curriculum focused on a thematic inquiry , these results seem more realistic.  Bringing student experience and expertise to the center stage empowers, motivates, and refreshes students to excel in life (and composition class)!

As we near the development of our own courses, I am relieved to realize the variety of directions, topics, and personalities encountered in exploring the instruction of Composition in FYC chapters 5-8.  It is refreshing to read about the value of individuality at the collegiate level when uniformity is all the rave at the high school level.  That isn’t to say I’m inspired to jump ship, but I’m inspired to right my own ship.

Mere teachers  can’t change policies that dictate our profession, but we can modify our curricula to foster individuality.  The more we read, it becomes increasingly apparent that what experience or expertise students individually possess are the foundation of course content.  The failure of our education system lies in the muting of such uniqueness in favor of prescriptive methods, general conformity, and strict adherence to the literary canon.

By allowing (and even encouraging) students to discuss personally relevant topics (sometimes even in their native language which may completely ignore conventions of SWE), we are providing ownership, value, purpose, and ultimately intrinsic motivation to improve writing (or expand writing repertoire).  In fact, many of these instructors suggest an even “tighter” focus on individual experience with language and composition to provide for individuality, but still a certain commonality and relevance to keep class discussion (both in class and online) based on composition in a cohesive context.  In other words, composition instructors need to provide a united curriculum that is thematically focused on linguistics yet still provides students with opportunities to talk about their experiences.

Having read the work of 9 experienced composition instructors and being exposed to even more through their references, planning around a central theme related to language and linguistics seems the most crucial decision in the entire planning process.  Most instructors describe their starting point as an overarching theme or question.  No matter what they called it, they started at a concept broad enough to provide many decisions to students and focused enough to ensure resulting work would be similar and rooted in linguistics/composition.

In reflecting on my own college experience, I am most appreciative of my professors who adhered to this school of thought; by involving myself with the content of the course, I became a stakeholder in the course not only for a grade, but for my role in helping evolve the course/subject and providing my own content to help others learn (and likewise learning from the content created by other peers).  Having this realization and reflection, I plan to adapt this practice for my own instruction of Composition and likely any other aspects of writing instruction outside of my Composition course(s).

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

• Mathieu offered a great framework/hierarchy for assignments.  I really appreciate her point about the relevance of what I keep referring to as a thematic focus – she says the writing in the course will improve grasp of thematic inquiry, and thematic inquiry will improve writing – that is a valuable point to realize to commit to such a thematic approach to planning this course.
• I really valued Redd’s discussion on Rubric Assessment. I find many teachers rely on rubrics for ease of commenting, but Redd makes many good points about grading consistently and providing clear expectations.
• Reid was great.  I honestly never understood his point about Actor-Networks and Assemblages (194-195) because it was a moment of serious text complexity, but he made great points about writing in the public domain (as we are for E688) and his grading process.  I also love his analogy of composition instruction as a fitness trainer developing a workout program that clients need to use appropriately to garner expected results.  And lastly, he makes an excellent point about problems in education as a result of developing education from the context of the 19th and 20th century industry and institution as opposed to the reasons for and the means of how the context of those times resulted.  That’s a really deep realization which could (should) turn the entire field of education upside down.
• I appreciate Shipka’s delineation of writing and composition.