Theories of Pedagogy

Hillocks, George. "What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies." American Journal of Education 93 (1985): 133-70.

Berlin, James. "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories." College English 44.8 (1982): 765-77.

Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. "Post-Process 'Pedagogy': A Philosophical Exercise." Villanueva 97-126.

Fulkerson, Richard. "Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century." CCC 56 (2005): 654-87.

Downs, Douglas, and Elizabeth Wardle. "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First-Year Composition' as 'Inroduction to Writing Studies.'" College Composition and Communication 58 (2007): 552-584.

This week's readings, of all the readings we've completed, spoke to me and my concerns regarding composition most directly. I saw myself and my teaching struggles in each article. Every few lines, especially in the Downs and Wardle article, I snatched after my pen to scribble down ideas or mark a passage that inspired me to do something new or better in my teaching of ENG101 and 102.

Much of what Breuch writes her 2002 article makes the assumptions underlying post-process pedagogy sound awfully like Berlin's description of the New Rhetoric from 1982. Breuch quotes Kent's characterization of these assumptions: "'(1) writing is public; (2) writing is interpretive; and (3) writing is situated'" (110). This quotation immediately reminded of Berlin's claim that "for the New Rhetoric, knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval...The elements of the communication process thus do not simply provide a convenient way of talking about rhetoric. They form the elements that go into the very shaping of rhetoric" (774). Certainly, post-process seems to highlight the public and situated nature of writing more than does the New Rhetoric, but Berlin's reference to the elements of the communication process suggest that these aspects are not completely absent from that older pedagogy. It would depend in part, I suppose, on what Kent specifically means by "public." As soon as writing is shared with another person--an audience--it becomes public, albeit with a limited scope. If that idea is what Kent has in mind (which Breuch's following section titled "Writing Is Public" suggests), then his version of post-process and Berlin's version of New Rhetoric certainly share a similar conception of the role of the audience in writing as a key part of the interpretive act, which recursively shapes the writing act. As for the situated nature of writing, I see Berlin referring to it in a highly implicit fashion when he writes that "[truth] can only represent a tentative point of rest in a continuing conversation" (777). While the reference to conversation can more easily be linked to the rhetorical element of audience, it also suggests that the New Rhetoric shares post-process theory's contention that writers should "respond to specific situations rather than rely on foundational principles or rules" (115). Breuch even cites Berlin as adopting postmodern thought in her section on the situatedness of writing. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Breuch affirms the connection I explore here, writing that "post-process scholarship is not advocating new directions, but rather endorsing anti-foundationalist and postmodern approaches that have already been articulated" (116). As she sees it, that connection is based on a how-centered, rather than a what-centered, approach to pedagogical theory.

The support mustered by Breuch for avoiding what-centered pedagogies seems to conflict with the pedagogical approach to FYC offered by Downs and Wardle. They argue that an FYC course based on writing studies would solve the tricky issues of what content to include in FYC, as well as be a first step towards breaking down public misunderstandings of writing. Allowing FYC students to read and write about content in which the FYC instructor is not an expert "accepts and perpetuates the myth that content is separable from writing" (577). Their case is compelling, particularly when they discuss the results from their students and when they raise the issue of who actually teaches most FYC courses. Although they don't specifically name graduate students (as PTIs and other degreed instructors also teach FYC), my immediate thought was, "Definitely!" Graduate students with no background in writing theory or pedagogy teach at least 99% of FYC courses here at UNLV. This situation leads to a number of issues, including a lack of consistency across courses, perpetuation of misconceptions about writing, and a lack of theoretical underpinning for assignments and pedagogical activities. Because of what I see at UNLV, I absolutely believe that Downs and Wardle's proposal would make composition more visible and respect as a field. If nothing else, teaching research from the field would introduce new generations of students to that most basic fact: that the field even exists. I certainly would have appreciated such an introduction earlier in my academic career than after having already begun graduate school for literary studies. Currently, I can say with almost complete certainty, that my life would be a lot easier if I had known this path of study was a choice before Fall 2009.

Although I'm not entirely sure how much Downs and Wardle's course conflicts with Breuch's resistance to what-centered, content-based writing courses, I'm even less sure how she would respond to the critical/cultural studies approach to writing so thoroughly critiqued by Fulkerson. On the one hand, this pedagogy seems to be very content-based, as it calls for course activities that focus exclusively on cultural and social injustices. As such, CCS demonstrates a concern for what is being taught. Yet, CCS pedagogy also seems to be concerned with the how of teaching, since "it would be inappropriate in a course about cultural hegemony for the teacher to be an oppressor, so most discussions of such courses invoke a democratic, often Freirean, classroom" (661). One compelling reason to believe that post-process theory would embrace CCS pedagogy is Breuch's similar invocation of Freire as an exemplar of how-centered teaching practice. Despite this attention paid by CCS writing instructors to their classrooms' environments, I can't get past the idea that the kind of one-sided cultural criticism I imagine them teaching creates content as foundationalist as any process instructor's exhortation that prewriting comes before writing. If analyzing an ad is always about how the man is trying to get you, does such criticism really allow for the always-in-flux situatedness that Breuch advocates? For me personally, I find CCS pedagogy as off-putting as does Fulkerson apparently. I am drawn to the idea of creating classroom and writing situations that encourage students to question their (or others') assumptions, but I draw the line at assessing my students' political ideas. Luckily, I have yet to be confronted by someone writing about politics in a way I disagree with; we'll see in what material that line is drawn--sand or stone--once I do have that experience, I suppose. Anyhow, the major idea I take away from Fulkerson's article is that the composition field is more fractured than ever before, in a way that I'm not aware of other widespread academic fields being. There is so little upon which we agree that isn't highly general and usually nebulous. This idea just bolsters my support for teaching FYC as intro to writing studies, as it would, if nothing else, provide impetus for the field to agree on some basic tenets and to present the nuanced understanding of writing to the public that we debate so vociferously among ourselves.

Which leaves us with just Hillocks' article to cover. I have to admit that much of it read like Greek to me, as I've never taken a statistics course (but now want to! It bugs the heck out of me not to understand things!). Perhaps because of its distance in time from the other articles, it also seems distant in content. Far fewer connections immediately leapt to the fore as I read this one. Certainly, its methodology is quite different; this is an empirical statistical analysis, as opposed to the theoretical approaches (and mini-case studies in Downs and Wardle) of the other articles. It's almost ironic that Hillocks is using a highly quantitative approach to build a defense of another kind of quantitative research method: experimental studies. His conclusions in many ways reinforce the pedagogical approaches and no-no's I've seen in other places: grammar instruction does not improve writing; having students talk rather than passively accept information does improve writing; setting lesson and course objectives helps students achieve certain outcomes; etc. One thing I particularly appreciate about Hillocks is that he does mention assessment unlike most of the other article authors from this week. It's all fine and well to theorize about various pedagogical approaches, but at the end of the day, institutional systems require that I give students a grade. Trust me; I'm smack in the middle of this slog right now. Hillocks' mention of assessment comes in his description of his study's design, which called for inclusion only of experimental methods that assessed student writing along a finite scale, rather than relationally. Although this is a passing mention and is not a focus of Hillocks', it does show that he recognizes the importance of being able to pass judgment on writing in order to determine student achievement. Downs and Wardle make a similar passing mention when they explain that a challenge of their course lies in accepting imperfect student work. Since I feel like I do that all the time (they wouldn't be students if their work wasn't imperfect), I'm not entirely sure what Downs and Wardle mean. I would have liked a more specific definition or description of what they mean by "imperfect."

All in all, this unit was a good note for me to end the semester on. I was able to reflect back on my own classroom experiences as I read these articles and thereby assess where my practice fits into the pedagogical theories laid out here. I think I'm pretty solidly New Rhetoric (which I think is what we've ended up calling social constructionist?), with the occasional dose of teacher-centered content delivery. My classroom tends to be democratic, sometimes to a fault when certain students dominate the discussion. My most frequent complaint is that "they didn't talk enough today!" I might give CCS a rethink as a possible way of engaging students more, but I think my inclination right now is more towards making writing studies the center of both 101 and 102 and hoping that they get as excited as I do about this stuff.