Response 12 - The Finale

Berlin's analysis of the Neo-Aristotelians, the Current-Traditionalists, and Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians through the lens of writer, reality, reader, and language were intriguing. Throughout the analysis of each he discussed how each theory deals with thought and knowledge. I think this is so important because without first looking at thought formulation how can we truly asses how to teach writing. Without thought, there would be no composition. I of course identify most with the New Rhetoric pedagogy, that "Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving interaction of opposing elements. It is a relation that is created, not pre-existent and waiting to be discovered" (774). This is as Berlin states is in the best interest of the students. Educators have to encourage students to formulate their thoughts based on reading, discussion, and writing. We also have to show them that knowledge is attainable and for the most part open to some form of interpretation. Thought and language mold each other and change each other, they are not isolated or privileged for only a select few. 

"The test of one's competence as a composition instructor, it seems to me, resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student" (777). We must hold ourselves accountable for how and what we teach, as well as how it's affecting the student and their needs. I think we often get comfortable with what we are teaching and stop asking the tough yet obvious question of "Why am I teaching this?" It seems a simple enough question but one that often gets lost in the multitude of other responsibilities and if this question is asked most would probably say "Because it's in the curriculum or because that's what I've done every year." Instead the response should be "I wanted my students to think in a new way  or learn about an unfamiliar topic to gain a different perspective." Everything we teach should be taught as a process, thinking, reading, and writing. 

Writing cannot be generalized, it is specific and situational, however that does not mean it cannot be taught. Breuch's "Post-Process 'Pedagogy': A Philosophical Exercise" looks at the lack of pedagogy in the post-process theory, through many citations, Breuch points out why others argue that the vagueness within the theory renders post-process unapplicable in the classroom. I liked her quotations and comments on Kent, although I don't agree with Kent on everything, I do agree that teaching should include working with the students. "This dialogic pedagogy requires two-way rather than one-way communication, suggesting that teachers move away from a transmission model of education and toward a transformative model that includes active participation from both teachers and students as collaborators" (102). I think the lack of concrete examples for implementation into the classroom causes much of the criticism about post-process. One thing I've observed is that teaching is becoming more about the bag of tricks an educator has than actual knowledge of a subject area. Teachers used to be scholars, well respected in their field but due in large part to the demand for teachers, we now have fast track programs and working certification programs and with these, the focus on content is lost. How can someone successfully teach their content when they have not mastered it? Breuch writes "While post-process theory does not offer concrete pedagogical agendas based on content. I believe that it offers valuable pedagogical principles that guide our practice as teachers. I see two main principles that post-process theory can offer pedagogy: the rejection of mastery and the engagement in dialogue rather than monologue with students" (118). I obviously agree with this whole-heartedly, along with discussion we also have to teach that writing really never ends, there is always room for change and improvement. 

The other area of the article that really had my attention was Breuch's review of Lindemann's "what-centered" and "how-centered" teaching approaches. "What-centered" emphasizes content with "how-centered" emphasizes activities (106). Process based theory according to Breuch follows the activities approach while post process follows more of a content approach. What I kept asking myself  throughout was where do I fit in as a teacher? I heavily use activities to teach content and I am definitely more concerned with students learning concepts and gaining knowledge rather than being able to specifically identify literary terms, modes of writing,etc. While these things are important they are not my main focus. I suppose I am sort of a blend or rather in limbo. Both have there merits as do process theory and post-process theory. But I'm not sure that I fit totally into one or the other, and do I even have to?

I have to admit, I had to read the first few pages of Fulkerson twice before I could fully understand some of his meanings. I had to look up axiological, defined by Merriam-Webster as "The study of the nature, types, and criteria of values and of value judgements, especially in ethics". This is why the question of "What makes writing 'good'?" falls under this category. It is not a simple question and it is one that has recurred throughout our readings and discussion during this semester. And indeed an incredibly tough question to answer, probably the toughest one that we as composition teachers attempt to answer. Fulkerson states that the approaches to teaching composition have split in multiple directions; critical/cultural studies, expressivism, and genre centered among others. He poses four questions; ethical, process, pedagogical, and epistemological through which to analyze each of the different ways composition courses are being taught. The questions he asks are very pertinent to the drastic changes in comp studies that have occurred, what I kept noticing throughout his review of each manner of teaching is that none were totally focused on composition. Which leads me to ask, should composition courses only focus on writing or do they have to be taught through the study of culture or literature? And, why does there have to be agreement across the board, can't good writing be taught through each of these processes?

"By enacting the assumption of the larger academic culture that academic writing can be taught in one or two introductory writing skills courses, FYC effectively reinforces the misconceptions about the nature of writing on which that assumption is based" (557). Downs and Wardle's article addresses some serious misconceptions about what can really be accomplished within one or two first-year composition courses (FYC). The assumptions people make outside of the field were shocking to me, especially Stanley Fish's comment from the New York Times that "FYC should focus strictly on writing's grammatical forms and disavow interest in content" (555). I totally agree that changes to reform these misconceptions must be made both within comp programs and for the greater public. Writing is specific and dependent on what is being studied and what is being asked of the student. Instead of general writing courses, students should take writing classes focused on their particular field of study, if you are a science based major, learn how to write lab reports and qualitative research papers, if you are an education major learn how to write rationales and reflections. Granted this would necessitate more staff and teachers who are knowledgeable in both their field of expertise and writing. 

Downs and Wardle's idea of changing FYC to an Introduction to Writing Studies does provide solutions to many of the problems that exist in FYC. By instructing students about writing rather than to write, they are given an avenue to better understand all types of writing and to translate what they learn in the class to other classes. The description of all the facets of the course and the student case studies were very helpful for me in forming a more full understanding of what this course would look like. I really identify with the scope of the class, that students are reading about writing and developing an understand that writing is not simply about drafting a paper, it involves research, discussion, revision, etc. I truly think that to change the conceptions of writing in and outside the system, this is the direction that composition studies needs to take.