Thursday, July 10, 2008

final project

One of the main thematic links between the articles we read for class is that good writing is contextual. What counts as “good” depends on a complex interplay between author, audience, intent, expectations, genre, and cultural background, to name just a few of the factors. As our peerless leader put it, the bumper sticker du jour in Comp and Rhetoric is “Writing is Socially Situated.” Numerous of the authors we read commented on this idea, in one form or another, including Barthlomae, Elbow, Delpit, Canagarajah, and Sirc. How the teacher of writing was supposed to respond to the socially-situated nature of writing varied depending on who was tackling the issue— Delpit had vastly different thoughts on the subject than Canagarajah, for instance— but all of these authors seemed to agree that what writing is, and what it is meant to accomplish, varied from one context to the next.

With that in mind, I have designed a mini-unit designed to allow students to reflect critically on their the varied writing discourses in which they participate. Geoffrey Chase in particular stressed the need for critical reflection on these discourses, stating in “Accommodation, Resistance, and the Politics of Writing” that students need “to problematize their existence and to place themselves in a social and historical context through which they can come to better understand themselves and the world around them” (21).

During the mini-unit, students will:
* Be introduced to the concept of socially-situated writing discourses.
* Reflect on the varied contexts in which they write.
* Consider the conventions, opportunities, limitation, and values of these discourses.
* Create a piece of writing that harnesses these different discourses towards a clear thematic and creative end.

This mini-unit was created to be used with a high school English class consisting of juniors and seniors.


Part One: Introduction to discourse
The unit will begin with an introduction to the concept of discourse. Students will begin by brainstorming all the ways in which they write. The instructor will work to allow the students to consider realms of writing that might not be readily apparent (i.e. emails, text messages, social networking websites, graffiti, etc.).

After students come up with a list of the varied ways they write, they will work with partners to develop lists of what constitutes “good” writing in these different contexts. For example, how is good poetry differ from good emailing? If time allows, the students could then attempt to write in one context while following the conventions of another: text message poetry, research paper love letters, etc.

These activities will lead to a discussion of discourse. Students will be presented with a definition/introduction to the idea of discourse, and will, as a class, reflect on what can be said about the discourses the students participate in.


Part Two: Privileged versus marginalized discourses
In this section of the mini-unit, students will begin to reflect on how some discourses are privileged depending on the writing situation. Reflective journal writing will help accomplish this, along with an introduction to some of the extant debates in Composition Studies. Student could be presented with excerpts from writings by Bartholomae & Elbow or Delpit & Canagarajah and asked to summarize/respond to the arguments being presented. Additionally, the class could read and analyze news coverage and editorial commentary surrounding the Oakland Unified School District’s 1996 decision to attempt to formally counter the marginalization of Black English.

Student will be asked to consider the political and social implications of the privileging of discourses. They will also reflect on where their own writing voices fit within this debate.


Part Three: Multigenre paper
As a summation of our study on socially-situated writing discourses, students will compose a multigenre paper that consists of many different types of writing, both privileged and marginalized.

For this paper we utilize a type of academic writing known as multigenre papers. This is a antidote to stale, forced, and formulaic “academic” essays that students are made to write in many educational contexts. Tom Romano, from Miami of Ohio University, has done a lot of research on this type of student academic writing; click here for Romano’s multigenre writing website. Briefly, a multigenre paper will explore a theme through numerous genres. To give an example, a student might write a paper on William Shakespeare, but rather than utilizing the typical academic genre of literary analysis or research paper, he or she may explore Shakespeare’s works and life through a combination of genres, both analytic and creative. When done well, this type of assignment allows for a very rich and authentic exploration of a theme.

The multigenre paper will fit very with the ongoing discussion of writing discourses. Student will choose a theme, and then explore this theme through a variety of the discourses in which they engage. This will provide academic sanction for typically marginalized discourses, allow for authentic inclusion of student voice, and prompt reflection on the benefits and limitations of different types of writing. As a conclusion to the multigenre paper, students will be asked to critically examine their use of genre and discourse with in the paper. They will be also be given the opportunity to perform parts of their paper to the class.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

fellow travellers

In his near-litany of metaphors and allusions pertaining to composition, here are few that Sirc missed:

Writing classroom as brick wall and can of spray paint:




Writing classroom as Ikea:




Writing as post-9/11 cultural mashup:


Sunday, July 6, 2008

safe houses versus academic ghettos

It was perhaps apropos that Canagarajah (do you suppose he goes by Professor C in his classroom?) referenced boxing in his article “Safe Houses in the Contact Zones.” (By the way, Tyson won the match via TKO in the first round). I can definitely see Canagarajah and Lisa Delpit circling each other in some Atlantic City boxing palace, gloves laced, mouth guards firmly in place.

It was interesting to read Canagarajah immediately after Delpit. Both dealt with the same basic theme: the relationship between dominant and marginalized discourses within the classroom. But they have dramatically different perspectives on this theme. While Delpit thinks that teaching students of color via their own cultural-linguistic background is tantamount to relegating them to the academic ghetto, Canagarajah argues that it is the job of the progressive, transgressive educator to support and promote these marginalized discourses and to find ways to bring them into the formal classroom discourse.

At several points in his article, Canagarajah makes points that strike, like an uppercut, at Delpit’s beliefs. On page 192 Canagarajah states that “simply acquiring the established academic/institutional discourse is not to be speak but to be silenced.” I couldn’t help but wonder if this wasn’t an intentional jab (to continue with the boxing metaphor) at Delpit’s “Silenced Dialogue.” On page 193 Canagarajah argues that bringing work from the safe house into the classroom “convey(s) to students that their vernacular discourses are valued academically.” Delpit might very well take the stance that they aren’t valued academically and to pretend otherwise is to do a disservice to the students. And, finally, many of Canagarajah’s strategies to legitimatize the writing done in the safe houses are suspiciously process-oriented in nature. Lisa Delpit, take that. It was interesting to me to see that Delpit was pointedly not cited in this piece.

At the end of the article, Canagarajah qualifies his stance a bit (see the paragraph that begins on page 194 and continues to page 195). Delpit, too, does this in “The Silenced Dialogue.” Both of these qualifications bring them much closer together, argument-wise, than most of their arguments would indicate, and brings to mind Don’s advice from an earlier blog post: “BALANCE, BALANCE, BALANCE.”

As a bit of a postscript, here are some clips of interest to those trying to place in context Canagarajah’s students’ cultural references:


Mike Tyson's TKO of Carl Williams:




Public Enemy doing "Fight the Power:"

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

progressive or hegemonic?

As a white writing instructor that considers himself “liberal” or “progressive” in the classroom and who strives for a democratic, socially-just pedagogy, it was with some trepidation that I read Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” After all, my brand of teaching—progressive, liberal, process-orientated, whatever you want to call it—has been generally smiled upon in the academic contexts I have found myself. I have been, so to speak, playing for the home team. So, when I read lines from Delpit like the following, it came across as somewhat of a personal attack:

“It was incumbent upon writing-process advocates—or indeed, advocates of any progressive movement—to enter into dialogue with teacher of color, who may not share their enthusiasm about so-called, liberal, or progressive ideas.” (pages 281-282)

After all, who wouldn’t be enthused by my teaching style?

But I was intrigued by Delpit’s argument. While I agree with her five points on the nature of power within the classroom institution, I have never considered the fact that avoidance of fundamental writing instruction was a method of denying access to dominant discourses. It rankled a bit; I have, after all, spent a large portion of my writing career trying to get beyond what I considered superficial, disconnected, skill-and-drill grammar exercises to “authentic” writing, in which the student had ownership and an authentic audience. This seemed liberating to me, a way to make writing matter. I hadn’t considered that doing so might disenfranchise a segment of my classroom.

I thought of the scenario I shared in class on Monday, the one where I had one African American student recently transferred from Indianapolis in my freshman English class. This student wrote and interesting essay, full of detail and voice, about growing up in an urban environment so different than the affluent suburban conditions he currently found himself in. It was original and insightful, but it was also absolutely riddled with spelling, grammatical, and syntactical errors. The department expectation was that I should grade this paper harshly; after all, half the grade was to be based on mechanics. Instead I fudged, made many positive comments on the student’s content, and ignored many of the errors.

I felt I was doing right by the student, showing that his voice and experiences and communication style were valued in my classroom. I also didn’t want to give a C to a student who wrote so honestly about his life. What would Delpit have said about this? Was I unconsciously oppressing this student by not explicitly giving him the tools he needed to survive in a world dominated by a hegemonic discourse? Was I praising his voice at the expense of his future? I don’t know, really. I need to further ponder these questions.