I remember student teaching. I was a senior at Olivet Nazarene University...a tiny little bubble of a community, tucked away from the rest of the world. In many ways, it was an idealistic haven. It was a world of praying problems away, worship times (mandatory--every Tuesday and Wednesday), (mostly) white skin, (mostly) middle-class, and an enthusiastic promise of changing the world.
And then there was Kennedy Jr. High.
Stepping into that room, I was the only white face besides my cooperating teacher. My students--23 fifth graders with fidgeting hands and shifting eyes--dealt with things I had never even dreamed of. They came to class after a morning break-in. They went on visits to the nearby prison to see parents or uncles or cousins. They struggled with bladder infections when their parents refused (yes...refused) to take them to the doctor. And they rolled their eyes through remedial test-taking strategies that were necessary because over half of the class had IEPs, and we didn't have enough manpower to diversify the curriculum. I can't think of a time that was more difficult in my teaching career....or a time when my struggle mattered less.
It's an experience that broke me more times than I can count, right before building me back up. I'm beyond grateful for that opportunity...and it's what sits in the back of my mind as I read things like Damian Baca's The Chicano Codex, Richard Ohmann's Reflections on Class and Language, or Jaqueline Jones Royster's When the First Voice You Hear Isn't Your Own. It's the lesson (or lessons) that linger as I wade through James Paul Gee's work on becoming a part of a discourse community. Because it's my reminder that these concepts--couched in the now-familiar jargon of pedagogy, terministic screens, rhetorical situation and sovereignty--are so much more than academic, theoretical constructs.
They are 23 faces, hungry and bored and waiting for recess because the math makes no sense to them. They're 32 middle schoolers who don't understand why "Reading Workshop" should be considered an elective and who are convinced they hate reading. And they are 30 freshman from the Chicago-land area, some of whom have only just finished the remedial CHANCE course before nervously wading into college-level English.
It would be easy for me--a white, middle class, educated woman--to make assumptions and claims about class and race and socioeconomic factors. I can talk about lenses and strategies. But I don't want to. I don't feel that I have the right. Because I've been teaching these "at-risk" students for years, now. I've been interacting with them on a daily basis. And they have shown me, first hand, that "[we] do not simply and eternally belong to [a] class. Rather, in all [our] doings from day to day, [we and everyone we are affected by] constantly create [our] class position" (Ohmann, 11). They, like bell hooks, might say "[I find it] a necessary aspect of self-affirmation not to feel compelled to choose on voice over another, not to claim one as more authentic, but rather to construct social realities that celebrate, acknowledge, and affirm differences, variety" (2). My students have their home voices. They have their street voices. They have their work voices. And they have their classroom voices. Sometimes these overlap. Sometimes they don't. But what I'm learning more and more is that I don't want to be the kind of teacher who doesn't hear what my students are saying because it doesn't fit into a specific, "accepted" discourse.
I have opinions. I can be very vocal about them. But on issues of race and class, I think I would much, much rather listen.
hooks, bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End, 1989.
Ohmann, Richard. "Reflections on Class and Language." College English,44(1), 1982. 1-17.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Processing Post-Process
It's not hard to understand why the Process Method became the dominant approach to teaching writing. A focus on "correctness" led to composition becoming a subject of remediation, rather than pride. Process changed that. It valued the stops and starts of writing in all its stages. It embraced imperfections and sloppy transference and the idea that imperfect didn't mean bad. Freshman Composition was still seen as a place of preparation, but Process instruction focused more on preparing students to think than on how to correct. As Peter Elbow says in Everyone Can Write, "I cannot teach students the particular conventions they will need for particular disciplines, but I can teach students the principle of discourse variation. ... I can't teach them the forms they'll need, but I can sensitize them to the notion of differences in form so [they]... will pick them up faster when they encounter them" (253).
The whole point of Process instruction was that focusing on the end product was detrimental to students. Even if they could write the perfect Lit Review or Research Paper, that knowledge left them utterly unprepared for the types of writing they would encounter in other disciplines (their disciplines) if they didn't understand the process that got them there. And focusing on process, rather than product, allowed teachers to reclaim a position of pride. "The teacher gets a new role by this shift of criteria from truth and good style to effect" (Elbow, A Method for Teaching Writing). They become a facilitator who teaches students how to learn, rather than an editor or drillmaster "fixing" bad writing.
The hope of the Process method was that the responsibility for learning and "good" writing would be on students' shoulders. They would become self-motivated. After all, they were focusing on their thoughts. Their ideas. Their processes. Their audiences. Surely they'd care about the outcome, right?
The problem is that the answer is a resounding......sometimes. Maybe.
Freshman composition is still a required course, rather than an elective. The teacher is still in a position of authority, and our students still look to us for the "right" answer. Process means understanding that there are many roads that lead to the same destination...but for students who are unfamiliar with a task, it's easy to believe that the process they learn in the classroom (often the teacher's preferred writing process) is the only process out there.
Enter post-process....which, at first, can feel as obscure and inaccessible as so many of the posts (post-modernism, post-materialism, post-structuralism, etc...). Advocates seem to disagree wildly on just how and why the process method is flawed: from Thomas Kent who would like to pitch it all out--bathwater and the baby, too-- to Bruce McComiskey who sees post-process as a continuation of what process started.
My largest problem with Post-Process theorists (at least as far as I understand them) isn't that they see a problem. They're concerned about students writing the perpetual "My Summer Vacation" essay, or the focus on a single process cutting out different learning styles, or the fact that self-centered writing ignores the fact that culture, society, and context drastically change what and how we write. And, I agree, these are all issues. But, to me, the problem isn't that process ignores these things. Not necessarily.
The problem is that process, taught badly, ignores these things.
Starting with personal knowledge means nothing until you can explain why anyone else should listen. You can't understand your own rhetorical exigence until you understand how that exigence is formed by the culture around you...such as why so many of our students want to write about the general, hot-button topics that they've heard their parents argue. It's not that they can't think for themselves. And it's not that they, themselves, are always affected by the issue. But they are affected by their parents caring. They are affected by their social circles talking about these things. And they react to those discussions, wanting to join in with something familiar and, obviously, important to the people around them.
My issue with Post-Process isn't that it's wrong. It's that I feel like it's the same thing...just done better. Which is to say, I don't have an issue with it at all. I just don't see why we're fighting to begin with.
The whole point of Process instruction was that focusing on the end product was detrimental to students. Even if they could write the perfect Lit Review or Research Paper, that knowledge left them utterly unprepared for the types of writing they would encounter in other disciplines (their disciplines) if they didn't understand the process that got them there. And focusing on process, rather than product, allowed teachers to reclaim a position of pride. "The teacher gets a new role by this shift of criteria from truth and good style to effect" (Elbow, A Method for Teaching Writing). They become a facilitator who teaches students how to learn, rather than an editor or drillmaster "fixing" bad writing.
The hope of the Process method was that the responsibility for learning and "good" writing would be on students' shoulders. They would become self-motivated. After all, they were focusing on their thoughts. Their ideas. Their processes. Their audiences. Surely they'd care about the outcome, right?
The problem is that the answer is a resounding......sometimes. Maybe.
Freshman composition is still a required course, rather than an elective. The teacher is still in a position of authority, and our students still look to us for the "right" answer. Process means understanding that there are many roads that lead to the same destination...but for students who are unfamiliar with a task, it's easy to believe that the process they learn in the classroom (often the teacher's preferred writing process) is the only process out there.
Enter post-process....which, at first, can feel as obscure and inaccessible as so many of the posts (post-modernism, post-materialism, post-structuralism, etc...). Advocates seem to disagree wildly on just how and why the process method is flawed: from Thomas Kent who would like to pitch it all out--bathwater and the baby, too-- to Bruce McComiskey who sees post-process as a continuation of what process started.
My largest problem with Post-Process theorists (at least as far as I understand them) isn't that they see a problem. They're concerned about students writing the perpetual "My Summer Vacation" essay, or the focus on a single process cutting out different learning styles, or the fact that self-centered writing ignores the fact that culture, society, and context drastically change what and how we write. And, I agree, these are all issues. But, to me, the problem isn't that process ignores these things. Not necessarily.
The problem is that process, taught badly, ignores these things.
Starting with personal knowledge means nothing until you can explain why anyone else should listen. You can't understand your own rhetorical exigence until you understand how that exigence is formed by the culture around you...such as why so many of our students want to write about the general, hot-button topics that they've heard their parents argue. It's not that they can't think for themselves. And it's not that they, themselves, are always affected by the issue. But they are affected by their parents caring. They are affected by their social circles talking about these things. And they react to those discussions, wanting to join in with something familiar and, obviously, important to the people around them.
My issue with Post-Process isn't that it's wrong. It's that I feel like it's the same thing...just done better. Which is to say, I don't have an issue with it at all. I just don't see why we're fighting to begin with.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
All the things she said...and he said....and me.
If recent proposals for legislation over copyright tell us nothing else, they tell us (clearly) that authorship has become increasingly complex in our digital age. Or, perhaps, has simply made that complexity very, very visible.
It's a conflict that instructors and students know well. Our school charters and handbooks come equipped with plagiarism policies and our course syllabai detail the penalties of violating them. Instructors stress originality, individual voice, and creativity....while asking students to include an increasing number of outside sources in their work. These are important lessons--knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum. We prove that we know what we know by engaging in conversations with others in those fields. Verbally or visually, that means acknowledging the other communicators that are out there and then having them respond to us and to each other.
But what happens when that knowledge is just a hyperlink away? Or when the sheer proliferation of available information makes it difficult to discern between "expert" sources and "amateurs?"
Accusations of plagiarism in the composition classroom are loaded. Instructors often feel violated when they receive plagiarized works, as if these texts somehow reflect a students' character or opinion of the instructor. Students plagiarize because they are lazy, disrespectful, inattentive, or (to be horribly politically incorrect) "dumb." In fact, a lot of the things instructors say about plagiarism seem to echo the attitudes Joseph Williams describes towards grammatical errors in his essay "The Phenomenology of Error." Responding to critical language regarding poor grammar, Williams says:
Jim Ridolfo and Danielle DeVoss take a different approach towards information appropriation. For them, research becomes a matter of remixing old information into something new. In other words, "[r]emixing—or the process of taking old pieces of text, images, sounds, and video and stitching them together to form a new product—is how individual writers and communities build common values; it is how composers achieve persuasive, creative, and parodic effects. Remix is perhaps the premier contemporary composing practice." In order for them to approach writing as a remix, however, Ridolfo and Devoss stress that instructors need to get rid of the idea that remix is simply cutting and pasting, or that this process is restricted only to music. Remixing is any type of composition where something new is created from bits and pieces of other works that have either been recontextualized and/or modified by the new "author."
Remixing and composition can be a tricky subject. Blatant intellectual theft is a problem and those distinctions need to be explored. But viewing research and research papers as remixes of other information allows us to participate in the idea of diaspora that Paul Butler explores in his article "Style in the Diaspora of Composition Studies." By viewing knowledge as shared and transformable, it opens the possibility for solid research in multiple genres, styles, and mediums.
It's a conflict that instructors and students know well. Our school charters and handbooks come equipped with plagiarism policies and our course syllabai detail the penalties of violating them. Instructors stress originality, individual voice, and creativity....while asking students to include an increasing number of outside sources in their work. These are important lessons--knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum. We prove that we know what we know by engaging in conversations with others in those fields. Verbally or visually, that means acknowledging the other communicators that are out there and then having them respond to us and to each other.
But what happens when that knowledge is just a hyperlink away? Or when the sheer proliferation of available information makes it difficult to discern between "expert" sources and "amateurs?"
Accusations of plagiarism in the composition classroom are loaded. Instructors often feel violated when they receive plagiarized works, as if these texts somehow reflect a students' character or opinion of the instructor. Students plagiarize because they are lazy, disrespectful, inattentive, or (to be horribly politically incorrect) "dumb." In fact, a lot of the things instructors say about plagiarism seem to echo the attitudes Joseph Williams describes towards grammatical errors in his essay "The Phenomenology of Error." Responding to critical language regarding poor grammar, Williams says:
The last thing I want to seem is sanctimonious. But...what happens in Cambodia and Afghanistan could more reasonably be called horrible atrocities. The likes of Idi Amin qualify as legitimate oafs. Idiots we have more than enough of in our state institutions. And while simply [sic] illiteracy is the condition of billions, it does not characterize those who use disinterested in its original sense (152).In many ways, I'd say instructor responses to plagiarism follow a very similar line. Intellectual theft is a serious crime...but how many of our students are truly operating under the intent of claiming someone else's work as their own? In amateur works, uncertainties and incomplete understanding about citation and "proper" research can lead to shortcuts or mistakes that, to all intents and purposes, look like plagiarism.
Jim Ridolfo and Danielle DeVoss take a different approach towards information appropriation. For them, research becomes a matter of remixing old information into something new. In other words, "[r]emixing—or the process of taking old pieces of text, images, sounds, and video and stitching them together to form a new product—is how individual writers and communities build common values; it is how composers achieve persuasive, creative, and parodic effects. Remix is perhaps the premier contemporary composing practice." In order for them to approach writing as a remix, however, Ridolfo and Devoss stress that instructors need to get rid of the idea that remix is simply cutting and pasting, or that this process is restricted only to music. Remixing is any type of composition where something new is created from bits and pieces of other works that have either been recontextualized and/or modified by the new "author."
Remixing and composition can be a tricky subject. Blatant intellectual theft is a problem and those distinctions need to be explored. But viewing research and research papers as remixes of other information allows us to participate in the idea of diaspora that Paul Butler explores in his article "Style in the Diaspora of Composition Studies." By viewing knowledge as shared and transformable, it opens the possibility for solid research in multiple genres, styles, and mediums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)