I am Matthew Williams and You are Not

One of the animated segments on Saturday Night Live that I always enjoyed was the "Fun with Real Audio" segment in which they would take the audio track of something, usually an interview, and then animate something else while the audio went on. The effect was to de-contextualize the audio and to turn it into something else. It was always comedic because the words, depending on the animation going on, took on drastically different meanings. Of course, on SNL, the goal was comedy, as many animations quickly evolved in to hilarious juxtapositions of serious interviews and bizarre and surreal animations. But there's an important process going on here that I was reminded of today. During our first year writing instruction symposium I was reminded several times that similar things could be brought upon our own teaching practices. For instance, for those who don't know, the current description of our FYC (first year composition) class reads as follows:

WRIT 1301 fulfills the first-year writing requirement. It involves critical reading, writing, and thinking as students practice some of the types of writing they may expect in their college career such as summaries, essays, academic arguments, bibliographies, and papers built on research. The course helps students develop, at a minimum, an approach to writing that relies on clear statement of a thesis and support of that thesis with appropriate sources and documentation. Time is spent discussing rhetorical elements of writing such as audience, purpose, and argumentative structure. Students also practice steps in the writing process such as invention, research, organization of ideas, paper drafting, revision, and editing. Students report, synthesize, and draw conclusions regarding the significance of what they read. Students become more aware of the rhetorical choices available to them and learn to make appropriate choices. Some sections may be taught in computer classroom. Some sections are offered online. Some sections may include a service-learning component.

As I see it, there are 5 key "terms" that the whole endeavor is built on. These are the 5 "Rs:" Reading, Research, Revision, Rhetoric, and Writing. I've highlighted them in the description. But returning to the idea of "Fun With Real Audio," one thing that struck me as I was listening to my colleagues at a FYW (first year writing) symposium today was that when we use these terms, we all assume we know that we all agree on what the terms mean, but in actuality we don't. For instance, during a panel discussion on teaching with "research," in my notes I had the question "what IS research" and "what is the function of research" written down several times. I also noted that with research, we all "know how to do it" but don't really know what "it" is when we teach it. The question of "well, what IS research anyway" seems so simple that we just neglect to ask it, let alone attempt to answer it. But returning to these terms themselves is fruitful and important if we're concerned with not just replicating the errors we've made in the past. So, this got me thinking: what happens to the writing class (real audio) when we change the definition of these terms that we use to describe it (the animation)? That is, what happens when we de-familiarize the familiar when we approach designing a writing class? As such, I offer "alternative" definitions to the 5 "Rs" (and yes, I know "writing" isn't an R word, but it sounds like one, so just play along, ok?).

Continue reading "Teaching Composition as Fun with Real Audio" »

Posted by Matthew Williams at 1:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I rarely teach with textbooks. In fact, I can't imagine any circumstances that I'd ever use a textbook for teaching a writing class again.

Mostly, I just haven't ever needed a textbook. The way I like to set up my class structure uses student writing as the text to study. I think it is invaluable to be able to have students learn not only from a critical examination of their peer's writing, but to also have them explore and analyze their own writing.

The problem I've always had with using textbooks is the use of a textbook in class (whether it be just a simple reader or a full blown writing guide) hearkens back to the old master-apprentice hierarchy in education. Even though instructors might step out of their role as the all encompassing source of information, textbooks do a rather nice job of stepping into that role.

The purpose of a textbook is to serve as a source of institutional knowledge and, consequently, a symbol and source of institutional power. Textbooks in writing classes threaten to suggest that the source of knowledge and empowerment is always something outside of the student. We turn to textbooks to show us what good writing is, how to properly construct an idea, and how to even go about the process of writing.

The textbooks that do not simply tell students how to write are still just as dangerous, if only because they are much more subtle about how they serve as institutional authority. Textbooks such as "Remix," while sexy and friendly to multi-modal composition gurus, is really no different than old time "write this way" books. While "Remix" avoids simple "this is what you do" sort of writing prescriptions, it STILL advocates and demonstrates an academic friendly way of exploring culture.

In a sense, the crime textbooks like these commit is to attempt to show students how to think about the world and culture around them. Whether you tell them how to think, or what to think, the result is always the same. It just moves the manipulation of the student's perceptions a little further up the river.

Personally, I like to think that every person holds a unique and infinitely valuable way of looking at the world. The more perspectives we allow into how we perceive the world around us, the greater our understanding will be.

Textbooks like "remix" aim at achieving hegemony and consensus. I'm more concerned with producing a polyphony of perceptions and ideas about the world, and celebrating those different voices.

And besides, college is expensive enough. Do students really need to buy another fifty dollar textbook?

Posted by Matthew Williams at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

* I have always felt uneasy about teaching Dominant Discourse in the classroom. This unease stems from my own disillusionment with white, upper middle class values and norms and my desire to see a more inclusive and diverse society. Basically, I shy away from Dominant Discourse simply because I don't want to be a part in perpetuating that discourse. That being said, I am beginning to understand the need for me to return to actual "teaching" after taking a couple years off while I dabbled in radical and progressive teaching pedagogies. The only thing more radical and progressive than not shoving the ins and outs of Dominant Discourse down the throats of my students is to actually help students get a grip on how to manipulate Dominant Discourse for their own libratory needs. This can be summed up with the following statement: "School sucks, I should know. Now, let me show you how to beat the man at his own game."

* Everyone seems to be talking about "themes" in composition classrooms. I think I have decided on a "theme" as well. My theme will be something called "writing." Why shouldn't students engage in discussions about what writing is, what it does, how it is controlled, and particularly, how writing does and does not work in academic settings. I keep feeling like we, as composition instructors, are engaging in a classically oppressive theater operation. We put on a show for our students, knowing the scripts (comp theory) and knowing how to act (grades, evaluation, etc), all while the students are not allowed to "look behind the curtains." They are, in a very Boal-esque sense, oppressed audience members who have no control over what they see on the stage. I think it'd be interesting to invite them backstage...to see what really goes on after a paper is written and handed in.

* The most important line I think I will be straddling this next year will be the line between every student's "native" discourse (i.e., the discourse that exists between their own friends, family, community members, etc) and other discourses (mostly academic discourse). It will be tricky because I need to teach one (professional discourses) while not suggesting or implying that each student's "native discourse" is a "lesser" discourse. I think a lot of parody/satire/mockery will be used.

* It's never fair to ask someone something as a way to figure something else out. It is even worse to assign something as a means to grade students on something else. When we assign a paper, what are we really looking for? And, are students aware of these things? Students should always be aware what standards they are being judged against, and be involved in a discussion about those standards.

* I still can't figure out what book I am going to use this fall. I thought about using Tom Newkirk's "Misreading Masculinity," but I think this book might be a little too specialized for freshman (not that it would be over their head, but it uses a lot of theory that students will have no background in).

* Even though I'm doing new things this fall, there is one thing that will remain unchanged...my commitment to finding ways for students to engage in meaningful interaction with each other. In most classes, due to the politics of grading, when students talk to each other, they do not talk with each other. Instead, they talk at each other. The reason for this is that, in most current-traditional classrooms, student discussion is employed as a means to "check up" on students to make sure they are doing their work. What then occurs is each student must "perform" for an audience of one: the grader. Everything they do or say is geared towards proving that the student has done the work required of them. This is not student-student interaction. This is student-instructor interaction via feigned student-student "chatter." I want to avoid this and employ student discussion not as a means of evaluating students, but rather as a genuine means of acquiring new knowledge and insight.

Posted by Matthew Williams at 2:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Next fall, as those of you who know me know, I will be returning to teaching freshman composition...my "native" area of instruction, if you will.

As I begin to think ahead to next fall, I am starting to compile a list of goals that I have for this semester of teaching. (actually, who am I kidding, I've been theorizing this class since last october...anyway).

As I move through the summer, I am hoping to take these somewhat lofty/abstract goals and mould them into actual teaching and learning strategies I can use in the classroom. This is just the first step in that process.

Goals:

#1. Engage a critical awareness of "self" and "voice" in each student's writing as well as a critical awareness of how "self" and "voice" conflict with the demands of academic discourse.

#2. Explore the function of writing in the academic space in a critical manner.

#3. Employ various forms of writing that help teach academic conventions with out implying or perpetuating the myth that "academic writing" is the best way to write.

#4. Use drama, parody, satire, cultural criticism, multimodal composition, and collaborative work (on occasion) to help crack open "ivory walls."

#5. Provide a space for individuality as well as a collective social awareness.

#6. Create in-class dynamics and situations that point towards meaningful peer-peer interaction (i.e., students talking with students instead of students talking at students).

#7. Employ grades and grading as a means to incite discussion on meaning, value, and worth.

#8. Re-connect the mental with the body whenever possible in whatever way possible.

#9. Empower students by employing writing as a tool of social justice and personal liberation.

#10. Have as much fun as possible.

Posted by Matthew Williams at 1:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)