Showing papers on "College English published in 1992"

Poststructuralism, cultural studies, and the composition classroom: Postmodern theory in practice

Abstract: The uses of postmodern theory in rhetoric and composition studies have been the object of considerable abuse of late. Figures of some repute in the field-the likes of Maxine Hairston and Peter Elbow-as well as anonymous voices from the Burkean Parlor section of Rhetoric Review-most recently, TS, a graduate student, and KF, a voice speaking for "a general English teacher audience" (192)-have joined the chorus of protest. The charges have included willful obscurity, selfindulgence, elitism, pomposity, intellectual impoverishment, and a host of related offenses. Although my name usually appears among the accused, I am sympathetic with those undergoing the difficulties of the first encounter with this discussion. (I exclude Professor Hairston in her irresponsible charge that its recent contributors in College English are "low-risk Marxists who write very badly" [695] and who should be banned from NCTE publications.) I experienced the same frustration when I first encountered the different but closely related language of rhetoric and composition studies some fifteen years ago. I wondered, for example, if I would ever grasp the complexities of Aristotle or Quintilian or Kenneth Burke or I. A. Richards, not to mention the new language of the writing process. A bit later I was introduced to French poststructuralism, and once again I found myself wandering in strange seas, and this time alone. In reading rhetoric, after all, I had the benefit of numerous commentators to help me along-the work of Kinneavy and Lauer and Corbett and Emig, for example. In reading Foucault and Derrida in the late seventies, on the other hand, I was largely on my own since the commentaries were as difficult as the originals, and those few that were readable were often (as even I could see) wrong. Nonetheless, with the help of informal reading groups made up of colleagues and students, I persisted in my efforts to come to terms with this difficult body of thought. I was then, as now, convinced that both rhetorical studies and postmodern speculation offered strikingly convergent and remarkably compelling visions for conducting my life as a teacher and a citizen. It is clear to me that rhetoric and composition studies has arrived as a serious field of study because it has taken into account the best that has been thought and said about its concerns from the past and the present, and I have found that postmodern work in historical and contemporary rhetorical theory has done much to further this effort.

Planning Text Together: The Role of Critical Reflection in Student Collaboration

Abstract: Writing instructors often assign collaborative writing activities as a way to foster reflective thinking; many assume that the very act of explaining and defending ideas in the presence of a respon...

Continuity and Change in the Study of Literature

Abstract: It's common knowledge that major changes have taken place in the college literature classroom. We hear that English departments across the nation have remade their curricula. The English faculty, which until recently concentrated on the well-known works and authors of the literary canon, now focuses on works by women and minorities, and also on products of popular culture and the mass media. Old distinctions of aesthetic quality have given way. The investigations of critical theory, deconstruction, feminism, and Marxism dominate the field. Educational goals for the classroom, which once centered on aesthetic appreciation, have altered accordingly. (For an account of literary study that takes these conclusions for granted, see Edward Jayne, “Academic Jeremiad,” Change, May/June, 1991, page 32.)

Exorcising Demonolatry Spelling Patterns and Pedagogies in College Writing

Abstract: Since the rise of college-level spelling instruction, pedagogies have been few, based primarily on “demon lists” of spelling words and injunctions to students about developing “informed doubt.” Thi...

Evaluating the Writing of Middle School Students.

Abstract: 24 Judging the writing quality of students is often stressful and time consuming. The need to give students supportive and motivational feedback, yet to grade the writing in an objective way are two seemingly contradictory tasks. Teachers may find themselves washing dishes, vacuuming rugs, and sweeping floors to avoid confronting the real chore of evaluating these papers. With the advent of writing-across-the curriculum and writing process programs, the frustrations which I have felt as a high school and college English teacher about evaluating final written products are now being experienced by language arts and content area teachers in the middle school. The purpose of this article is to provide some time-saving and purposeful evaluation strategies which can be used with various writing projects and reports.

A Comparative Case Study of Implementation of Writing as a Process.

Abstract: Implementation of a new program is a complex process of putting ideas into action. Program implementation can be characterized through the identification of interrelated factors which determine the success or failure of implementation of an innovation. Writing as a process has been perceived as a successful teaching methodology for many years, but a number of factors impact on the implementation of writing as a process and determine whether or not it will receive safe passage into the classroom. A comparative case study investigated the process of implementation by examining the factors which helped or hindered the implementation of writing as a process. The implementation of the process writing methodology was undertaken by eight teachers of secondary English who attended writing workshops. The subjects were then divided into two groups, one considered to have successfully implemented the program, the other not successful. Data were collected through interviews and questionnaires. The factors identified as influencing the implementation processes were: (1) district support; (2) perceived need; (3) beliefs; (4) teacher knowledge; (5) teacher interaction; and (6) ongoing inservice. District support was concluded to be the major factor distinguishing the successful implementers from the non-successful ones. All of these interrelated factors affected implementation of writing as a process through their interaction in intricate systems of circumstances and characteristics. (Forty-six references are attached; various documents used for the research are appended.) (HB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF WRITING

Grandmothers in the Classroom: How College English Teachers Can Help Those Non-Traditional Students.

Abstract: Realizing that non-traditional students must cope with a campus that remains primarily oriented toward the 18-year-old just out of high school, the college teacher must make sure that both traditional and non-traditional students feel comfortable together in the classroom. College English teachers can help non-traditional students by letting them use what they already know, by letting various personal experiences--as a coal miner, nurse, mechanic, fire fighter, grandmother--be subjects of their writing. "Free-writing" in the first class session allows students to express thoughts and personal anxieties about coming to college. Throughout the semester, teachers should monitor students' writing attitudes, often through one-to-one discussion. Non-traditional students have had intriguing experiences, and their personal stories and anecdotes, along with their understanding of the world beyond college, should be made part of the English classroom. (A drawing by M. C. Escher used as a writing prompt and a writing attitude survey are included.) (RS) ********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Grandmothers in the Classroom: How College English Teachers Can Help Those Non-traditional Students Stephen Warren "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MAT IAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) M/chis document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization Originating it Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction Quality Points of view Or opinions slated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy

Writing To Reform the English Major.

Abstract: This report outlines the impact of the University of Vermont's writing-across-the-curriculum program on the development of the English major. Included in the report are: (1) a summary of the faculty writing project, with a list of premises and practices; (2) descriptions of four books published collaboratively by members of the English department and other departments at the University of Vermont: "Programs That Work," "A Community of Voices: Reading and Writing in the Disciplines," "Reading, Writing, and the Study of Literature," and "Angles of Vision"; (3) a description and schematic outline of the writing curriculum; (4) a list of guidelines for English majors at Vermont; (5) a description of a new discussion-based introductory course focusing on reading, writing, and the study of literature; and (6) a report prepar..i for the university administration explaining the benefits of the writing pro9ram. Also included in the report are a number of reproduced documents which are content related: an application to attend the faculty writing workshop; the covers of the four collaborative books concerning the role of writing in teaching and reading and writing about literature; a schematic of Vermont's writing program; pages from the Vermont College Latalogue describing changes in course offerings; a proposal by the Writing Committee for a new writing concentration for English majors; and the renults of an informal survey of both English faculty and senior English majors about their responses to the changes in curriculum. (HB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *******,8************************************************************** WRITING TO REFORM THE ENGLISH MAJOR Toby Fulwiler The University of Vermont PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 10 THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERiCi

Assessment in a Social Context: Grading as an Interpretive Community.

Abstract: Three teachers of first-year composition used cross-grading as a way of extending the student's grasp of interpretive communities as arbiters of value as well as creators of meaning. Students in six sections (two experimental groups) approached the English 101 Common Final in the same manner, discussing a published article and sharing their preliminary writing before completing a final draft during the examination period. In a practice run, students in Group B observed the threq teachers sharing freewritten responses to a published article as a preliminary to composing a polished essay. Both groups saw the teachers' freewrites and polished essays, but only Group B witnessed the verbal negotiations of this "interpretive community." Results showed that: (1) students in Group B did not write better essays on the Common Final than those in Group A; (2) students in Group z. may have developed a better understanding of reading and interpretative communities; (3) teachers probably graded student essays more fairly and consistently as a result of having constituted themselves as an interpretive community in front of classes, reaching a rough consistency in grading about 90% of the time; and (4) students in Group B, as evidenced both ln their journals and in their quantitative course evaluations, felt better about grading procedures than those in Group A. Evaluation can be demystified when cross-grading partners define themselves ar an interpretive community. Cross-graders can demonstrate their reading strategies and acknowledge their critical biases, thus entering into a dialogue that enriches both students and teachers. (SR) *1********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that cam be made from the original document. ***********************M********************************************* WDActa+ OE RI daemon at pattcy Christopher Gould -PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS SEEN GR TED BY To TriE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER tERIC) Assessment in a Social Context: Grading as an Interpretive Community The social dimension of literacy is now a commonplace in composition study, and one practical result is the implementation of reader-response theory in English 101. Pedagogical works often refer to the composition class as an interpretive community, and many instructors invite first-year students to interrogate the conventions of academic discourse. Welcome as these developments are given the decline of cognitive-process theory, impediments remain. One is the persistence of institutional requirements that militate against active reading. Two of the "core requirements" of English 101 in our department, for example, are "a series of on-going exercises in summary and paraphrase" and a final examination that asks students to read and respond to a published article, beginning with "a oneor two-sentence summary of the article's main idea." Both these assignments, unless deliberately adapted by the instructor--adapted in such a way as to subvert the impulse behind their inclusion in the departmental syllabus--reinforce the notion that meaning resides within the text. Another impediment is the contradiction between the instructor's role as evaluator of student work and her efforts to enfranchise the class as a community of readers, writers, and critical thinkers. This particular dilemma was underscored recently when one of our more popular and theoretically informed colleagues received the following comment in a student evaluation: "The teacher's grading standards are different from those of the class." What once might have been dismissed as a 2 BEST !!!!PY Van! ro! r Assessment in a Social Context 2 petulant complaint becomes an ingenuous observe.tion, if not a compelling revelation. The study we are about to describe addresses these concerns. First, we wanted to find a way to engage first-year students in the kind of reading implied by Stanley Fish's admonition that "there is not a single way of reading that is correct or natural, only 'ways of reading' that are extensions of community perspectives" (16). We hoped to model this kind of reading by constituting ourselves as an interpretive community of three educated adults and revealing the negotiations through which that community might arrive at some notion of what a particular text "means." Second, we hoped to complicate the usual views of assessment--either as a disinterested application of objective criteria or as the arbitrary exercise of idiosyncratic notions of "good writing." Accordingly, we used cross-grading as a way of extending our students' grasp of interpretive communities as arbiters of value as well as creators of meaning. In other words, by allowing students to observe how the three of us constructed meaning collaboratively, we hoped to elucidate--for ourselves as well as for them--how we might evaluate the interpretive essays they would write in response to the English 101 Common Final. Doing this, we surrendered the reassuring myths of holistic scoring--strict objectivity, inter-rater reliability, perhaps even valid assessment--all cf which appear problematic within the context of reader-response theory. In short, we trusted the force of that theory, our resolve to enact it without compromise, and our students' good will.