QQC 6/29

1) I was interested in Bartholomae's statement of writing becoming "Taylorized" and that all brainwork be removed from shop. I would be interested in learning more in depth how this term became a everyday term for the writing process. How have the ideas of the unauthorized writer slowed the progress of learning the writing process?

2) I was also interested on Tobin's statement about "The failure of pedagogy processes" when Tobin makes this statement and describes the process as being too touch feely. I wonder how Tobin might clearly navigate this process of finding a balance between a tutor/teacher being a source of knowledge and also encouraging a student to find their own voice but not dictating the writing process to their students?

QQC 1

1. Tobin says he doesn't discount the differences in theories concerning writing as a process, but notes that these differences become far less important in the classroom where instructors are adept at applying the varied approaches when necessary. I wonder about the sometimes dogmatic insistence on one correct theory that those who study composition without teaching it might fall into. Is this what Bartholomae resisted in his insistence in remaining a composition instructor as well as specialist?

2. Tobin also points out that as process pedagogy became a common form of writing instruction in universities it lost its edge. He suggests this is because of “quirks of some individual teachers and the nature of the textbook business,” but perhaps it is because within the seated, indoor, teacher-student hierarchy of our education system in which teachers are outnumbered and the economic efficiency of the institution is valued first creativity will always, eventually, be driven toward standardization and replication of some sort?

Questions for June 29th class

1. I am having trouble understanding the dichotomy "process versus product" in Lad Tobin text and his position on the topic. How can those who claim to be product-oriented deny the importance of process? And it seems to me that Tobin slightly disagrees with those who defend a product-oriented teaching approach but I am not sure.

2. "What is composition and why do we teach it?" made me wonder about the English department and the brief history of composition which is presented. I wonder if the "acceptance" and development of composition in academia is related to English gradually stablishing itself as a lingua franca, and how much that might have motivated people worldwide to write in English.

QQC1

1. My first question stems from Bartholomae's discussion of industry and its effects on employment and teaching practices within institutions (English departments) with respect to the critique of student compositions. I wonder about the relationship between capitalism and a lot of the problems he identifies in his larger essay. I'm always hearing about how universities are being pushed toward a customer service model, which seems to put the largest strain on the liberal arts, and so I wonder how much of our new and developing theories regarding effective teaching practices with respect to composition are created under the strain of that customer service model?

2. I really like how Tobin's essay acknowledged that process pedagogy necessitates an examination of the interior. I always try to find ways to make my students develop a greater awareness of their interior selves in any given assignment. I once had my students examine their favorite or least favorite article of clothing in a short essay rather than a more conventional text. Their thesis statement had to make a claim about themselves or their priorities or perhaps societal influence over their particular demographic. Have others taken this kind of approach, and if so, how?

QQC1

1      2) While reading Tobin piece on process, I found myself nodding along or pausing when I found something that I did or did not identify as part of my own writing process. I then began to wonder if, as a teacher, having a clearly defined process yourself might be necessary for teaching in a composition classroom. Would it be better to have a more fluid process that is constantly evolving, or is it better to have a stricter idea of your own process so that you can communicate that to your students and model it? Is there an effective way to model your own process for your students within a classroom context?

     2)   Fulkerson discusses writing across curriculum and ensuring that students understand how to write for their own discourse community. What are some of the best ways to ensure that you are setting up students to be equipped and prepared to create a paper within their own discourse community? Would requiring they write a paper within their discipline and setting workshops up based on major be effective? How might we practically attend to this within a classroom?

QQC 6/29

1. Fulkerson and the WPA Outcomes Statement both emphasize rhetorical axiology as the fundamental purpose of writing--that it is, in fact, as the WPA Outcomes Statement puts it, "the basis of composing" (1). This idea that we always write for an audience informs the rest of each text's discussion. I'm just wondering...does everyone agree wholeheartedly with this assumption? Perhaps this is a generally accepted premise now (at least Fulkerson makes it seem so), but I must confess (at the risk of seeming naive and idealistic) that I still cling to the expressionist axiology--that at least on some level we write for ourselves as well--and not just in creative writing but even, sometimes, in academic papers. What do you think?

2. I found Bartholomae's work intriguing. I do have two questions though. First of all, what is an unauthorized writer? Maybe I just missed it, but I didn't locate an actual definition of what he means by this term. Secondly, Bartholomae pushes for teaching writing in a particular fashion that he calls "practical criticism" (28). He challenges us to be willing to make a comparison between an established writer like Toulmin and a freshman in college. I agree with Bartholomae that we should treat students as serious writers and challenge them to look carefully (not carelessly!) at their work and revise it at a foundational level. At the same time, do you think there needs to be a balance between doing this and also not expecting too much from someone who is perhaps writing real research papers (e.g. being exposed to citation rules, learning what a motive is) for the first time? What could this look like?

Kristy Randle Questions for 6/28

1. Richard Fulkerson in “Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity” argues that recent scholars stress the use of writing from individual social exchanges (419). I remain conflicted with this and find it very much paradoxical. Do we consider social expressionism in writing to be inclusive or exclusive of vernacularisms of those same social interactions? Do we draw a line between academic prose and composition prose?

2.  I know we are not really supposed to criticize the scholars we are reading and at least formulate at the very least what the author is trying to convey. Nevertheless, he is my take and question on David Bartholomae’s What is Composition and (if you know what that is) Why Do We Teach It? Bartholomae is in direct conflict with the mission and practices of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. I feel very lost trying to keep up with his rhetoric and really have struggled to come up with a question other than what is his main argument? My real question arises is the notion of the “unauthorized writer/writing”. Does he mean that the examples he is fussing about lacks citation? Do they lack having an opinion or stance on what they are writing? 

Bergholtz QQC 1

1) I love the WPA Outcomes and Goals! I think they are pretty fantastic, though there is some room to grow; while they do a good job integrating technology into each of the outcomes, they could be even more explicit about the importance of digital technologies. My question is pretty straight forward--which of the areas do you think is most important to teach students? To add to that, which of the areas do you think you need to better understand to prepare you to teach the class? Personally, I feel pretty good about knowledge of conventions, processes, and rhetorical thinking. However, critical thinking, reading, and composing seems like A LOT to cover in one class, and it is quite vague.

2) This question is a bit self-serving, perhaps. I'm really interested in social media in the classroom. Can anyone think of an assignment they could use that would bring social media into the classroom in order to help teach one of these key concepts? (rhetorical thinking, critical thinking/reading/composing, processes, knowledge of conventions)

if anyone is interested, I made this site that you can click on that gives teachers a variety of ways to implement social media(s) into FYC in ways that satisfy the WPA Outcomes and Goals statement:

https://jmbergholtz.wixsite.com/4cs2017

QQC 6/29

When Bartholome is wishing for a culture that can recognize and celebrate papers that are "disordered and disorderly" instead of perfunctorily lavishing praise on writing that is "too good," too polished, I could not help but think of the ways in which this culture is taught to students early on. I do not refer to just high school or middle school, but even before when the basic lessons of writing are introduced, such as the indomitable five paragraph essay structure (which is attacked most severely in Fulkerson's piece), or when students are first taught to seek "reliable" sources. My question then is: what are ways that the foundation for another way of thinking abut writing can be laid while still maintaining a scaffolding technique that allows students to learn some of the introductory conventions of writing? Should some of these basic conventions in writing still be taught at all? Are they helpful when first confronting longer forms of writing? Should they be embellished? Completely dismantled?

I will make my next question shorter: I was surprised to find how many of Tobin's descriptions and methods (many of them quoted from other sources) could work for both a classroom and tutoring environment. What aspects that he mentioned do you think would work best in both places of writing instruction?

QQC 6/29/17

1. This question partially refers to what we've discussed in Dr. McElroy's class but it came to mind while I was reading through The Teacher's Guide.  We discussed how writing centers have a stigma of being meant for remedial work.  Do you think that  courses like ENC 1101 or required courses like ENC 2135 likewise have a negative stigma?  In addition, how might you as the teacher work around that?  I think Bartholomae also touches on this matter.

2. I wish I could use this to take a survey of everyone in the class.  Since reading Fulkerson's chapter, which of the four axiologies (Expressivism, Formalism, Mimeticism, or the Rhetorical axiology) he discusses do you favor most or do you favor several of them together?  I imagine you could base this answer both on your own writing and the way you critique the writing of others.

6/29 Questions

In Tobin's "Process Pedagogy," he writes that the regimentation of process pedagogy has "most to do with the quirks of some individual teachers and the nature of textbook business than with some inherent flaw in the process approach." But how did just a few authoritarian teachers infect the entire department? And whose fault is it if the textbook business is now choosing how the department is run?

Bartholomae states, "The most surprising thing I have noticed as I travel and monitor the development of composition...is the consistency, virulence, and direction of the attack on composition and those in it. [...] It is faculty in English attacking composition programs on ideological grounds." Of course the STEM programs and social sciences don't have as much of an opinion on how to teach students to write. It makes perfect sense that the program that would have the most ideological qualms, or qualms at all, with composition programs would be the English department. So I'm not quite sure why Bartholomae is surprised by this?

QQC1

1. Fulkerson writes about the four philosophies of composition and, ultimately, concedes that a rhetorical axiological approach is most popular today. However, given that some audiences--in and outside of the academy--will evaluate writing based on grammar and usage, how does one negotiate a comprehensive rhetorical approach rooted in developing voice and persuasiveness with a formalist approach which might seem punitive and discourage students from developing the skills necessary to develop a persuasive argument?

2.  On page 12 of Bartholomae's essay, he says that he's reluctant to support graduate students who wish to build a professional identity around the CCCC and composition journals. He goes on further to illustrate a Comp Specialist who does essentially everything in the field other than teach comp courses. Because of the discipline's nature, I'm nodding my head. However, I wonder about the reverse case (especially in other disciplines where teaching isn't as heavily emphasized): What do we make of a tenure track creative writing instructor who doesn't publish creative work? What do we make of a distinguished lit professor who isn't publishing criticism or actively researching? Naturally, each discipline has different standards for accomplishment, but do you believe Bartholomae's critique marginalizes people in the composition field who have changed the way people teach and why (or why not)?  

QQC1

1.     This question is inspired by Tobin’s “Process Pedagogy.” No matter if you’re rhet/comp, CW, or Lit, what habits, rituals, or patterns have you developed for your own writing process? To what extent do you employ these tools consistently?

2.     Bartholomae claims current English and composition pedagogies critique the critical apparatus and conventional grammar of writing while shirking responsibility for an investigation of the “types of knowledge” students are taught, and then employ—and yet his offered solution (“teach students to question the text by reworking it”) does not appear to offer an epistemological framework for investigating this problem. Or does it? And if it does, how? And if it doesn’t, what tools might we use toward this aim?  

QQC #1 - Antonio

1. Through the beginning of Bartholomae's article, he engages in a interesting conversation about the state of academic writing and what is considered good and how that is rarely if at all challenged, asking the question how does a teacher tell a student to write "worse." So my question is: is there a stringent hold on the state of academic writing where there isn't room for creativity of the writer to work outside the norm and how do we as instructors foster students to not just replicate examples presented to them?

2. This may be a little generic...but Tobin discussed the different approaches to teaching writing. Does different approaches to teaching writing work better at different stages of writing? Such as, taking an expressivist approach is more beneficial to first year undergrads. And why?

QQC 1- Clarke

1. In the Teacher's Guide and the WPA Outcomes, we see breakdowns of expected outcomes for the students and our role as a TA in the sense of how to get the students where they need to be. In relation to that, Bartholomae talks about how institutions are "designed to produce and reward mastery." Is it fair to say that by having these expected outcomes for our students that we as TAs will be looking for said "mastery?" Or is it better to look for the "mastery" in different forms, such as progress and understanding, whether or not the outcome has been mastered or met?

2. The WPA Outcomes Statement mentions how "complex writing processes are increasingly reliant on the use of digital technologies"and how it is our duty to instruct our students on these writing processes through concepts such as rhetorical knowledge, critical thinking, conventions, and processes. Should we approach the digital technologies with their own set of concepts or is it safe to look at digital technologies as just one of the genres in which we write and perhaps, how would you combine the two?

QQC 6/29

1.In Bartholomae’s article, he mentions the way in which composition, literature, and theory work together in an English department and are yet at odds with one another, due to financial reasons or faculty issues. Do you think this tension between subgroups is inherent to the discipline or perhaps born of the bureaucracy of higher education? How can this tension be reconciled, if at all?

2. The WPA stresses many areas of student enhancement, and the two that strike me are the idea of “critical thinking” and “conventions.” It seems that having a firm grasp of both is an important part of being a successful communicator—that is, having the ability to critically reason out the best “convention” to employ to communicate an idea most effectively. Do you think there are any projects or assignments that may help students hone their critical thinking skills when it comes to determining the best mode of communication for a particular idea?

Questions 6/29 - Robert Cocanougher

      1. Fulkerson focuses quite a bit on audience, as that is the emerging consensus of his time. Part of me wants to ask whether or not writers should be concerned for any audience, but more specifically I want to ask: how does audience determine success? Is successful writing in the joining of the audience addressed and audience invoked? That is, if those two things are entirely separate audiences, would your work be considered a failure? Or is success determined by an audience affected? Even if it is not the way you want to affect them or the direction you want to influence them, would this be considered successful rhetorical work in Fulkerson’s mind?

2. Could someone clarify what Bartholomae means by “regime of truth”? It comes up a couple of times in What is Composition (alongside the word “truth” in quotation marks) and I’m not quite clear on what he’s doing with it or how exactly he intends it to be interpreted.

Questions for 6/29 - Tricia Rizza

1. In Process Pedagogy, Faigley argues that there are four competing theories of process. It is interesting that he uses the word "competing" even though later in the article practitioners typically borrowed from a variety of theories in order to teach. I am curious about the notion of "competing"theories implying that one is clearly better than the others versus a balance of two or more to find what is ultimately pedagogically effective?

2. In Bartholomae's article he quotes information regarding critical scholarship from Bove's book Intellectuals in Power: A Genealogy of Critical Humanism. In the following paragraph he mentions that the definition could be said to be "opposed to composition".  I would love some clarification regarding this statement. I keep getting stuck on understanding Bove's definition as providing constructive criticism that would allow for growth in writing.

QQC 6/29 - Emily Scott

Emily Scott - 6/29/17

1. The Teacher's Guide explains that as ENC2135 teachers we will have our students keep journals. Should we have creative prompts for our students or allow them free reign to write about anything and everything in any mode they choose for these journals?
2. The WPA Outcomes Statement states that, "In this Statement 'composing' refers broadly to complex writing processes that are increasingly reliant on the use of digital technologies" in relation to our ENC2135/ENC1101 students' composition. For those of you who have some teaching experience already, what are some ways you have used digital technology and media in your classroom(s) in the past? I am looking for some good ways to hopefully implement technology in and outside of my classes.

How to Contribute to the Blog

To Post...

1.       First, accept the link to contribute to the blog through your FSU email account. If you didn't receive the email, email Amy (atc15c@my.fsu.edu)
2.       Go to blogger.com
3.       Create a new post by clicking on the “New Post” box
4.       Fill out the blog with your two questions about the reading, its content, its argument, or its relation to teaching
5.       Post it

             

To Comment…

1.       Go to the blog: http://summerbootcamp2017.blogspot.com/ a
2.       Click on the comment section when you find a person's post you'd like to comment on
3.       Type and submit your comment under that person's post