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.
Hi Stephanie! Concerning your first question, I think that if a course is mandatory to all students, there is less of a stigma. I believe that anything that is extra and outside the classroom might have a stronger stigma. Even visiting a professor on office hours might be considered necessary only if you're struggling by most students. I do believe, however that if students skip ENC 1101 and go straight into ENC2135 might somehow create a hierarchy between them and those who didn't get enough credit in high school and still need to attend ENC 1101. I hope my comment makes sense, if I have understood these classes right!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your question!
Hi Stephanie!
ReplyDeleteTo respond to the first question, I don't think they necessarily have a negative stigma attached in the same way that a designated remedial class does. I think that, if students feel negatively toward these classes, it would likely stem more from annoyance at a requirement that they view as unnecessary and unrelated to what they actually want to do (much in the same way I am sure a lot of us felt about having to take a freshman math class). I think that the classes are there to ensure everyone is on the same level, and that, since it is a university-wide requirement instead of something someone who already feels like they aren't a great writer is forced to take when others aren't, most students don't really associate any kind of remedial tags to it.
In response to your second question, I lean most heavily towards the Rhetorical axiology, but I also favor expressivism. I definitely think that it is all context-dependent, of course, but in a classroom I think the rhetorical approach is most effective. When I am composing, I focus on issues of audience, purpose, context, and genre most, but when I am critiquing I actually focus more on things like grammar and mechanics first before getting to things like audience and purpose and genre (unless there is something glaring); I feel that this works to kind of tidy up the paper before getting to the nitty-gritty of revision.
Concerning your second questions, I believe I favor the rhetorical axiology the most, but also I can be a little influenced by expressivism in the sense that I want my ideas to translate on my writing, however, I do not want to completely disregard my audience.
ReplyDelete