Main

August 20, 2008

Textbooks in the classroom: a few thoughts.

One might look, for example, at Ken Macrorie's books, or Elbow's Writing with Power or Brannon, Knight, and Neverow-Turk's Writers Writing. Here, in more intimate, self-conscious personas, the monolith of correctness is recast in a less important form, and attention shifts to the act of writing. But of course the result is no less propaganda. The only difference is that an alternative set of political values is at work. To frame it in somewhat oversimplified terms, the "traditional" texts present writing as a matter of learning to conform, with an emphasis on decorum as a means of identify- ing individual with group; whereas the "non-traditional" books present it as a liberating activity, a means of defining individual as separate from group. The point here is that writing is necessarily more complex, and more variable, than either position can depict-encompasses both of them, and more. In either case, then, the users of such books are presented with proselytizers who differ only in their particular doctrinal allegiance: in short, with propaganda. (31)

--Stephen North in The Making of Knowledge in Composition


* Writing manuals and how-to textbooks devalue the role and integrity of the composition instructor. They follow in a long and storied tradition of seeing the act of teaching as a non-academic or non-intellectual activity. In short, it turns the instructor from a practicing academic into a mere clerk or technician that carries out predetermined activities and routines. A writing manual allows instructors to think less about teaching and consequently prevents them from engaging in self-reflexive pedagogy.

* Textbooks remove the most important element of learning from the equation: the student. It relegates authority to entities external to the localized, specific classroom (e.g., publishing companies, textbook authors, etc).

* The yearly cost of tuition at the University of Minnesota is now over five figures. For many students, it is much more once living expenses are added in. The average student debt upon leaving the University of Minnesota is in excess of $20,000; one of the highest figures in the mid-west for a public university. Government funded aid is lessening and state support is drying up. A 60 dollar textbook represents a small fraction of the total expense of going to college. Yet, a lot of 60 dollar textbooks add up over the course of 4 years.

* Most (if not all) writing manuals are geared towards writing correctly to fill out mythical standard forms of writing with out considering that these forms are constantly changing as they are composed. Research of professional and technical writers has time and time again noted that "correctness" in writing is one small part of many factors that go into being able to "write well."

* The prevalence of writing manuals is a reflection of the state of the discipline and not a reason to use such texts in the classroom. Educators who specialize in composition are actually a tiny minority of people who actually teach composition. The majority of composition instructors are specialists in other areas or graduate students from other fields. For these instructors, the belief is that writing manuals and text books are necessary as the information and knowledge contained within them is too important to let a non-specialist handle on their own. Simply put, it "teacher-proofs" a classroom.

* Textbooks introduce corporations and their marketing into the classroom, whereby decisions of how to teach are guided by successful marketing of publishing company representatives and not necessarily academic or scholarly research/theory. Consequently, the available set of "teaching methods" becomes constrained by what the market makes available to instructors. Further, new theories of writing are constrained by what could be used in a textbook.

* Textbook publishers are typically for-profit endeavors who make a profit from first year writing classes, creating troublesome conflicts of interest for both instructors as well as departments.

* It is unavoidable that textbooks create an environment where students "discover" or "locate" the correct answers, principles, or theories instead of creating them.

* Local, community, individual, and inter-generational forms of knowledge are devalued while institutional, non-localized forms of knowledge via experts contained within writing guides are privileged.

* Writing manuals and textbooks perpetuate a specific ideology of what the classroom should look like and how it should operate. Reliance on textbooks makes it difficult (if not impossible) to envision other, alternative, and potentially viable/valuable ways of understanding the mechanics of the classroom space. An inability to even conceive of how a class might work with out a textbook at the center of it demonstrates how narrow our conceptions of how learning happens really are.

* Textbooks and writing manuals run the risk of being the educational equivalent of setting a child down in front of a TV in order to socialize it.

* When we select a textbook, not only are we supporting the ideologies contained within the book, but we are also perpetuating the system and the network (in all of its socio-political facets) that created and consequently ensure the hegemony of the textbook as the primary source of instruction. In short, the purpose of the textbook ideology is the preservation of the textbook ideology, especially when we consider that much of the information contained within various writing guides and manuals can be found for free in other places (e.g., the internet, libraries, and most importantly, communicative communities).

November 19, 2006

Student Resistance and Pedagogical reform

One thing that came up repeatedly while talking individually with my students this semester was that my composition class was run in a way they never expected. For most of them, when they signed up for composition, they envisioned an "english class" much like they had in HS where they were required to write rigidly defined research papers and were lectured to over grammar and mechanics. For those of you who know me, clearly this is not my style (I take, perhaps, a little too much pride in being in that radical faction of expressionistic compositionists)...but while I've had a pretty decent amount of success this semester in overcoming what could have been a potential breeding ground for nasty student revolt, this link over at tomorrow's professor blog is a very helpful and comforting reminder that student resistance almost always comes with the territory when you move outside of traditional instructional methods.

I particularly like the suggestions on minimizing it, and I'm already trying to formulate a game plan for next semester when I go back to teaching a class with mostly upper division students who, at least in my past experiences, have very rigid expectations on how a writing class should be taught. I firmly believe that a student's attitude and expectations heading into a class have a direct and profound effect on what they get out of the class. The problem with changing instructional methods is that you immediately create a situation where there is great potential for the student's attitudes and expectations to be put on the defensive.

Additionally, it seems as though this is always further compounded by the fact that in creative writing classes, there is a tendency sometimes for students to engage in 'idol-worshipping' of their instructors (which, I think, is wholly understandable when you realize that instructors sometimes craft themselves as validators of a student's personal "expression" in a class...how Foucault when I think of it...) which leads to a near-sense of personal betrayal and offense when you teach in a manner that a former instructor did not. This is further amplified when you teach a class that begins to question the very methods of instruction by former instructors. (this is why I would get so frustrated with some of the regular faculty who seemed to relish their abilities to erect quasi personality cults around their teaching...like that one kid who sprouted an MDB knock-off beard..ew.)

Even something as benign as adding blogs or a wiki to a class seeks to bring all this to the surface. I guess that's why teaching was never meant to be for the weak at heart, huh?

November 15, 2006

Craft-Criticism and the Reformation of How "Poetry" is Taught...

(From my other blog)

In any English department, there are, at the least, three main "areas" or "groups" of inquiry/study/scholarship.

These three are:

Composition
Literature Studies
Creative Writing.

In a strange twist of common sense, however, there exists two competing and often antagonistically opposing camps: Those who see Literary Studies as the most important thing, and composition. Creative writing, interestingly, is a part of literary studies, NOT composition.

Think about it:
In most creative writing classes, students are required to read a "wide variety" of poetry. They are asked to engage in the interpretation of those works as well as the interpretations of the works of others. They may even be asked to read common literary criticism of works they are reading.

In Literature classes, students are required to read a wide variety of poetry. They are asked to engage in the interpretation of those works. They are generally asked to read common literary criticism of the works they are reading as well.

The only difference between a literature class is the output. Students in a creative writing class are expected to turn literary studies into literature. Students in a literature class are asked to turn literary studies into literary criticism. But while the output is different, the methods are generally the same.

Composition, on the other hand, concerns most of its work and scholarship with the actual processes that produce writing. It combines both the rhetorical tradition as well as the more recent "composition studies" tradition which is where most of the mainstream process orientated writing theories have come from.

Composition studies, since it is a forward looking inquiry, can do work into how to break genre lines. Literary studies can only, at best, recognize where the lines exist. This, in my opinion, helps to explain why most poetry that comes out of a poetry class is really, frankly, dull. We aren't teaching them to be innovators or revolutionaries. Rather, we're teaching them to look backwards, interpret, describe, and then mimic.

As I've said before, creative writing when it utilizes the literary studies approach to writing can only result in the fulfillment of a pre-determined idea, form, or conception of what poetry "is." And by "is," I mean what already has been.

Craft-Criticism

In Tim Mayer's book (Re)Writing Craft, there are several ideas that I think are just crazy enough to work. The main one is his idea of craft-criticism.

When Mayer's talks of craft, he's not talking about what most in creative writing think when they think of craft: technique. Rather, Mayer's argues for a radically exploded definition of craft that is so wide that it can even question its own tenants. Craft-criticism in this formation can even be utilized to address the question of "what IS craft, anyway?" and "what IS the function of the poet-critic."

Academic literary criticism is preoccupied with the question of interpretation. Craft-criticism, while it may use interpretation as a tool, is more concerned with the question of production.

Literary criticism asked "what does this mean?" Craft-criticism asks "how can this happen?" One is always looking back, the other has the potential to look forward.

Craft-Criticism as Radical Pedagogy

In a sense, this is what I am trying to set up in my advanced poetry class. A community of writers who are engaging in craft-criticism. Why this is so radical is that it turns the current-traditional pedagogical methods of creative writing completely upside down and runs the risk (although a healthy one) of turning its own guns on itself. By allowing and even encouraging craft-criticism to happen, the doors open to allowing harsh and brutal interrogations and investigations into the hows and whys of "creative writing" that have, traditionally, been feared to the point of censorship by the vast majority of those who teach creative writing.

The end result that I see in this is that it does something very important: It returns the power to the student over their own definitions of writing. It gives them a voice in their own writing processes, and a weapon to use against future attempts at order and institutionalized process censorship.

September 8, 2006

Reformulating the Questions of Composition

So stop me if you've heard this one before.... A student walks into a composition class and is told how to write in concise paragraphs. They are told of the relationship between topic sentences and supporting sentences. They are taught that it all flows in a logical and coherent way. They are told how to craft a good thesis sentence and that everything in a paper should cohere to that one sentence. They are taught the idea of the '5 paragraph argumentative essay.' They are shown....what? You say you've heard this before? That this is pretty much every composition class? Well, I guess that really isn't funny then, huh?

There has always been something wrong with composition. Even from the start, there has never been any "right" answers to how to go about doing this. Theories would be borne out of theories and scaffolded on assumptions and traditions that are now so old that they are hard to untangle from the entire endeavor. Is there nothing new, then? Maybe. Maybe not.

The study of the history of composition and writing instruction has traditionally been the study of various theories of how writing happens. If you look through various textbooks dealing with composition, ideas such as the paragraph as the main unit, the idea of "themes" to write on, the notion of expository writing as the main domain of writing...all these ideas have had their time on the chopping block.

But what is curious is that this question, the question of how writing happens and its related question how do we teach how writing happens? is only one of three questions we can be looking at. The other two, in many regards, may be far more interesting and important to be looking at.

Continue reading "Reformulating the Questions of Composition" »

August 11, 2006

The case against WebCT

Ahh, fall time in Minnesota. Fall is truly one of those times where I really get dreamy. The cool breezes in the morning that lift orange and yellow leaves off the ground for short distances while others wait to fall beneath stunningly crisp blue skies. The afternoons where you can lay in soft green grass under partly cloudy skies feeling the warmth of the sun on your skin. The evenings and the inevitable smell of burning leaves mixed with roasted coffee, pumpkin pies, and an occasional whiff of impending rain. And the nights where the sounds of gentle rain fall on soggy leaves creep through cracked windows and somewhere in the distance is an error message that reads something like "WebCT is currently experiencing technical difficulty, please try again" that is followed by an anguished scream.

If you, or someone you love, has used or will be using WebCT, the above scenario is one that you are probably familiar with (in particular, the last part). If the statistics at the U of MN are correct, somewhere around 2,000 classes use WebCT in some form or another. That's a lot of classes. And, I should mention this to you now, for the last two years my own classes have been a part of that number. For my part, I have exposed at least 100+ students to that thing we all call WebCT. Yep. I had students take quizzes over WebCT, submit papers, engage in discussion. And, not to brag, but I'd say my ventures in WebCT-land were moderately successful. There are things I wished had gone better, but for the most part, WebCT did what it was designed to do. And that is why I am never using it again.

Continue reading "The case against WebCT" »

August 9, 2006

Manifesto concerning technology in the classroom.

(in the most random presentation possible!)

* Technology should never be used for the sake of using technology.

* There is a philosophy behind every piece of technology. Understand this and make sure it is identical to your preexisting teaching philosophy.

* You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Similarly, you can build message boards, but you cannot make students participate. In both cases, you have to make them thirsty for the satisfaction of engaging in the activity.

* Never expect that students are digitally literate. It is a skill that must be acquired like anything else.

* Don't expect that students will get this training somewhere else.

* Being able to surf the web and correspond via email does not mean a student is digitally literate (even though even these small tasks are difficult for some faculty)

Continue reading "Manifesto concerning technology in the classroom." »

July 30, 2006

Creative Writing, Comp, and the New Paradigm of University Education

Just some bullet points I found in a notebook that I had forgotten about...


• Up until now the theory laden field of composition has merely been trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak…trying to feign innovation that merely serves to mask a continuation of the old paradigm of writing instruction.
• Regardless of how you package it, the majority of writing instruction still boils down to the singular act of the instructor commenting on the students writing and handing it back to them. This is nothing more than a different version of content transmission from instructor to student.

Continue reading "Creative Writing, Comp, and the New Paradigm of University Education" »