As the semester comes to an end, I think it is important to give our definitions of compostion, what it is and what it does. I would even like to pose the question to all who teach writing at the freshman level, What should the freshman writing class look like practically?
     I understand that we have come to some kind of a consensus regarding defining composition; however, I think it is still important to attempt to define it.  I would like to know if the rest of the class can at least give some reasons as to why it is important to try and define composition and composition studies as a whole. 
      Perl seems to give characteristics, as identified by other writers, of composition and the process of writing as a whole.  In one instance she points out that “writing as ‘recursive’ instead of ‘linear’” (xv).
       She gives another characteristic of writing and language when she refers to Min-zhan Lu who states that “speaking and writing were always a function of the differing political and social contexts in which she was living.” (xvi)
      She goes on to suggest that writing is not merely an individual act, but a social one and borrows the words of William Irmscher who reminds all that “writing is above all a symbolic act and an essentially human activity.” (xvii)
         Sondra Perl is careful to caution, it seems, teachers of writing practitioners and says that “academic writing is no our only source of sophisticated understanding of what it means to compose” (xviii).  She reminds us of “ an aspect of composing often overlooked in academic research: the sense that a writer can create, out of all that has come before, something new.” (xviii) 
         So, I wonder what is Composition? What is it that we need to teach our students in a composition class? 

Toward the end of the "Process" chapter of A Teaching Subject, Harris posits that "To really change the teaching of writing, then, it seems to me that a view of process must go beyond the text to include a sense of the ongoing conversations that texts enter into--a sense, that is, of how writers draw on, resond to, and rework both their own previous writings and those of others" (91). His concern throughout the chapter--and its "Interchapter," a form I'd like to hear the classes thoughts on (i.e., what purposes does it serve and did it work towards those purposes?)--is on how process theory veritably ignored what students had to say in their writing. Is Harris right to insist that writing instruction be more concerned with responding to what students have to say about a particular subject? Although this is a "yes" or "no" question, I think its important that we--as instructors of writing in some capacity, each of us--take the time to both honestly answer the question for ourselves, and in so doing consider the implications our answers have for our interactions with students, within the field of composition studies, and our pedagogical approaches.

Harris further criticizes Emig and Flower for " positing an ideal text and working backward from that" (90). I don't think this criticism needs much more elaboration to ask the question I have about it, which is, "Is it possible to develop a pedagogy (or even an assignment) without having an ideal product in mind (predetermined as successful)?" Another yes/no question, but I wonder if the answer is "yes," what does that pedagogy or assignment look like? In answering "yes" here and rejecting Harris' Emig and Flower's necessity for an ideal product, do we step into the noodle-aisle-wasteland of the post-process, post-pedagogical Happening?

Finally, Crowley insists that current-traditional rhetoric is very much alive, especially in process-oriented approaches to composition, a la, "I see no evidence that an alternative epistemology has ever succeeded in dislodging the hold of current-traditionalism on writing instruction in American colleges and universities, although one or two paradigmatic alternatives have been suggested since the 1960s" (Crowley 64). If the vestiges of current-traditional rhetoric do still linger (or dominate) in current composition theory/pedagogy, what would the process of truly dislodging it entail? What would be the benefits of doing so? What would we lose, and are we willing to take that loss?

     Geoffrey Sirc asserts that bland architecture results in simplified compositional programs that ignore the complexity and contradictions of everyday life and that the reason we, as educators, settle for such simplistic compositional programs is because of our diffidence that stems from the (perceived) status of composition and writing in the academic field. In short, composition studies teachers are caught up in establishing our status as "academic" or "professional" that we find ourselves engulfed in "order" and that which is "authoritarian". Sirc later asserts that the cause of the overall lull in the field of composition studies is "composition's professionalization, it's self-tormented quest for disciplinary stature." What's odd is, I can see precisely where Sirc is coming from. I understand that composition itself should be THE "place" for intellectual inquiry but has become a "service course designed to further the goals of other academic units". So my first question would be whether or not educators of freshman composition are in agreement with his overall concern or to what degree? More than anything, I simply wonder if composition studies has sacrificed too much of the elements which make it composition, a form of art, for the sake of being deemed a branch of college-level academic.
    Nancy Dejoy argues that first-year writing educators wouldn't use process pedagogy as a rule or "law" but rather as an approach to teaching writing and calls 

 
 Lynch, in After Pedagogy, at first blush, seems amenable to with Sirc’s seeming revitalization of an expressivist immersion in the educational “space” apart from the rigid “trappings” of academic architecture that evacuated a potentially “richer, more seductive” way of coming to texts (7) of the classroom in English Composition as a Happening, especially in mentioning Dobrin’s “rejection” of any “pedagogical mission” in contrast to “postpedagogy” as a point of departure (xiv-xv), a “disruptive approach” he later intimates as potentially a reversal that in no way is productive (30).  For Lynch, an unwillingness to engage with a pedagogy made necessary by having to engage in attempts to come to something that passably resembles writing in the space of the classroom, whether or not the teacher incites this as a process, would seem a rupture too severe, as it does not account for an impossible jettisoning of the teacher having some sort of role in the classroom (35, 45).  In this way, Lynch would seem to counter Dobrin’s fervent exhortations towards a “focus on writing itself” (Postcomposition 3) that brushes aside the primacy of coming to conceptualizations of the subject and kinds of subjectivity within the context of classroom practices. Yet, Dobrin cautions that his remove to writing itself is not an absolute disavowal of “student-subjects or writing-subjects,” but rather a necessary expansion of “theorizing writing” beyond a material specificity of practice narrowly constrained to the space of the classroom (15).  Dobrin’s claim as to what writing theory should not concern, “ideologies, politics, subjectivities, agencies, identities, discourses, rhetorics, or grammars” (24) itself teeters on the brink of falling over the cliff of oblivious conceptual suturing inasmuch as his desire to discover the “writing as phenomena” itself reestablishes another kind of subject, if one that is profoundly abstract, ambiguous, and delocalized as a “writing [that] functions to produce other phenomena” (24-25).  And in this way, Dobrin is flung back, perhaps, towards Dejoy, inasmuch as certain kinds of classroom spaces are required for any postpedagogical enterprise—spaces that themselves acknowledge the capacity for student “participation and contribution” (62)—regardless of an assignation of what aggregate accomplishes writing. Itself.  Unfortunately, “writing itself,” adhering to Dobrin’s linkage as a phenomenon capable of apprehensible enactments while divested from any particular subjectivity remains unstable, if one wants to conceive of the onset of the coalescence of such apart from more normative conceptions of embodied agency (24).  Is it, perhaps, theoretically productive to glean some semblance of connection to Sirc’s expressivist nostalgia, namely space as a “very specific, lived place of passion and desire” (27) in order to approach how a potential to compose severed from any recognizably human embodiment or subject vibrantly and inexorably unfurls, and is therefore necessarily localized, at least momentarily? If so, what are the conceivable limits of such a mélange of abstraction?  

Since it seems like I'll be the only one responsible for leading discussion on Monday, I figured I would post a couple more questions than usual to help us along.

One major similarity between Shipka and Downs/Wardle is the idea of setting high expectations for students because they are certainly capable of accomplishing more - in doing so, students not only get so much more out of the course but also we learn a lot from them as well because it’s more rewarding for us to watch them grow and build their toolbox. From Downs/Wardle: “the course respects students by refusing to create double standards or different rules for student writers than for expert writers." I can see how combining the two pedagogies of composition made whole and an introduction to writing studies course will help students understand the nature of writing and to explore their own writing practices as well as build that toolbox they’ll need beyond the composition classroom. Another similarity between the two: "students who participate in this kind of course will not be expected to learn the advanced/in-depth skills students might encounter in other courses” and "in keeping with the goals of many writing courses, a primary goal of the comp course is to help guide students through a set of basic rhetorical processes" (Downs and Wardle).

With these similarities and the two readings in mind, what are some ways we can make students/faculty/administrators/parents, etc understand that this direction of FYC is necessary? (After all, they are hyper-focused on numbers, results, statistics, and money.) The challenge of both pedagogies presented in these readings is ultimately the same: it will not be “accomplished swiftly, easily, or without resistance” (Shipka); however, it will improve the field and students as a whole. How do we get everyone in and outside the academy to understand that?

I'd like to hear about how you all feel about the suggestions for readings Downs/Wardle offered for their Intro to Writing Studies course, since we’ve read many of them during our time in this course? Do you think these readings are accessible enough for first year composition students who are obviously not at the graduate level? Do you think students would surprise us by what they would have to say about these readings? (Especially since we’ve been doing this ourselves throughout this entire semester in this class by looking back on what worked/didn’t work in our own comp classes we've taught or taken as students back in college.)

Since this week's theme is "after process," where are we at in terms of process/postprocess? I thought it was interesting that both of these recently-published readings hint at using some forms of process to help students (and instructors) find their way, despite coming behind the heels of scholars like Kent who declared we are in a postprocess era. For example, Shipka calls for even more research on process in 2011, though she’s hinting at a change in how we study it.

Shipka discusses the idea of a “traditional notion of composition.” What does that mean at this moment in time? This idea has shifted so many times over the course of composition history, so I'm curious as to what you think it means today.

Paper Proposal for Visual Rhetoric in Composition Classes
​
In Charles Hill’s 2004 article “Reading the Visual in College Writing,” he advocates a change in pedagogy to include the teaching of the visual in writing classes.  His point is that students do not spend their days reading written texts; they spend them being bombarded by visual texts, and because of this, these texts become important as far as critical examination is concerned. Visual text, which has been undervalued in its power since the shift to the word, is set to share equal billing with written text as technology improves and multimedia forms of communication continue to develop.

Hill’s statement, “Because persuasive images are most often used, not to support arguments with logic and evidence, but to prompt viewers to develop new associations, the logical apparatus that has been developed to analyze and evaluate verbal arguments does not seem to apply to visual forms of persuasion” took me aback, however (121).  Why is there a misalignment between the visual and its usage and the written and its usage in argument and in the teaching of argument analysis in pedagogy?  To my knowledge, it does not appear to be a stretch to apply the logistics of the written argument to visual argument, and I would have thought this would have been easily accomplished and established in pedagogical practices.  Realizing that teachers balk at change for fickle reasons like the latest in technology trends, one can understand that progress has been slow, but to be missing an important part of composition classes, seem more than just balking.  It seems negligent.   I argue that there is a way to take the analysis and evaluation of verbal arguments and apply or modify them to include visual forms of persuasion and that these are necessary actions to be taken, if we are to prepare students to be critical thinkers and not passive consumers.

Using W. J. T. Mitchell’s book as the pivotal text for visual rhetoric, this paper will be an examination of the differences between written and visual texts in rhetorical analysis pedagogy in composition classes. First the two types of analysis will be defined.  Then commonalities will be found, and from those commonalities, a pedagogical plan of unification will be proposed for the composition classroom.  I believe that there are trends that the two seemingly disparate pedagogies follow, and therefore the two may be unified in a common pedagogy to better meet the needs of students in classrooms.  This modification or combination of pedagogy would not negatively impact already occurring instruction, would be easily implemented, and would have significance beyond the English classroom across the curriculum as those skills of analysis of both written and visual texts can be utilized by all disciplines and in the community at large.

Resources:
Anderson, Phil and Anne Aronson. “Visualizing the Academic Essay.” Questioning Authority: Stories Told in School. Ed. By Linda Adler-Kassner, Linda and Susan Marie Harrington. Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 2001. 115-134.
Hill, Charles A. “Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes.”  Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World:  A Critical Sourcebook.  Boston: Bedford/St. Martins 2004. 107-130.
Mitchell, W. J. T. Picture Theory:  Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1994.
New London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66 (1996):  60-92.
Ott, Brian, and Greg Dickinson. “Visual Rhetoric and/as Critical Pedagogy.” The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. Ed. By Andrea A. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson and Rosa A. Eberly. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pub. Inc., 2009. 391-405.
 

 Critical Pedagogy and Human Rights Culture
 
The “human rights regime” (HRR) is the name given to the various socio-legal institutions that define and export legal norms in service of protecting and promoting the rights of marginalized groups. Although there exist protocols and constitutions that specify when, how, and in what way states should act in response to humanitarian crisis, the mobilization of such efforts are seen as dependent on public will. It is the task of NGOs, IGOs, and government agencies invested in the HRR to activate this political will. The predominate tool for gathering political will is the “awareness campaign.” Images and videos, usually graphic or upsetting in some way, circulate in interconnected political discourses through social media. The logic behind such campaigns supposes that by revealing the conditions of crisis to political subjects they will be motivated to resolve the crisis. However, history has shown us that such campaigns are often ineffective at best; at worst they only serve to exacerbate violence and marginalization. Despite growing evidence that awareness does not guarantee intervention, activists have not generated alternatives to these campaigns. Critical pedagogy is similarly interested in revealing the conditions of oppression that undergird social systems.  Further, critical pedagogy has been subjected to similar problems and failures. Both institutions have failed to compose a discourse that generates “matrices” for political action (Freire, 160).

In this paper, I will explore how awareness campaigns and other forms of human rights education operate as a critical pedagogy. Drawing on the work of Paulo Freire, post-process theory, and the emerging field of “sensational jurisprudence,” I want to imagine the conditions and features of an effective dialogic space surrounding human rights. In the composition classroom, I want to explore the efficacy and demands of “collaborative learning” and “service-learning” projects. Specifically, I am interested to see if these courses are capable of producing student-texts that indicate critical, self-reflexive engagement with political ideologies. Further, I hope to show how the axiology used by instructors in these courses can be used to evaluate and improve awareness campaigns.  
 
References:
 
Ashley, Hannah. "Between civility and conflict: Toward a community engaged procedural rhetoric." Reflections 5.1-2 (2006): 49-66
 
Ellsworth, Elizabeth. "Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy." Harvard educational review 59.3 (1989): 297-325
 
Heard, Matthew. "What Should We Do with Postprocess Theory?." Pedagogy8.2 (2008): 283-304.
 
Kent, Thomas. Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. SIU Press, 1999.
 
Kreps, Sarah Elizabeth, and Anthony Clark Arend. "Why States Follow the Rules: Toward a Positional Theory of Adherence to International Legal Regimes." Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 16 (2006): 331.
 
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2000.

Composition studies continuously examine the intersections of race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and sexuality to great effect. However, only recently has a conversation begun about religious identity and students’ faith-based writing. I suspect this is because faith-based writing presents a particular issue to academics, and may force many academics to confront their own deeply-entrenched postmodern and critical positions. Academic and religious discourse is generally conceived of as oppositional, which leaves religious students with few options to reconcile their spiritual and intellectual selves. In many cases writing teachers intentionally excise religion from their pedagogy under the assumption that religious inquiry produces simplistic and unsophisticated arguments. As a result students are rarely given the tools to meaningfully engage their faith, beliefs or religious self through writing.

The artificial dichotomy between religious and academic discourse only hinders the ability of religious students to participate in academic writing. According to DePalma, these don’t necessarily need to be separated. Religious discourse is the discourse of affirmation; academic discourse is the discourse of inquiry. To rigidly separate these falsely assumes that discourse is a static entity when truly it is always in flux.

Religious inquiry can be an engine to produce novel approaches to the world that can’t be conveyed in any other way. This is in line with DePalma’s application of pragmatism where he argues that religious discourse is but one of many discourses that can be used to examine the world and create positive consequences.

Possible questions are these: how might religious discourse read and conceive of texts? How might their conception of text interact with composition pedagogy? Are there ways to bridge the gap between religious and academic discourse? Do composition teachers face any ethical dilemmas in trying to educate these students? Does educating these students in mainstream pedagogy always mean that they must relinquish their faith-based literacy? Can academic literacy and faith-based literacy inform each other?

Much of current literature is on the topic of Christianity, particularly fundamentalism and evangelicalism. I hope to move beyond Christianity to the way other religions interact with composition pedagogy. This seems to be fertile ground for further inquiry that hasn’t yet been fully enacted.

Works Consulted:

Carter, Shannon. “Living Inside the Bible (belt)”. College English 69.6 (2007): 572–595. Web.
 DePalma, Michael-John. “Re-envisioning Religious Discourses as Rhetorical Resources in Composition Teaching: A Pragmatic Response to the Challenge of Belief”. College Composition and Communication 63.2 (2011): 219–243. Web.
Rand, Lizabeth A.. “Enacting Faith: Evangelical Discourse and the Discipline of Composition Studies”. College Composition and Communication 52.3 (2001): 349–367. Web.
 

​While rhetorical theory and composition pedagogy are often combined into similar programs, or even conflated to the same genre, the scholarship surrounding these fields can read as remarkably disparate. This paper attempts to explore one of the intersecting lines between the two – that of space – and follow this line in an affirmative fashion, which will trace how spaces (the classroom, bodies that occupy it, etc.) are not, as conventionally seen, static, but rather, are generative. That is, it is an exploration in the ways space navigates both rhetorical theory and composition studies, and, to a certain extent defines the scholarship and practices that follow. However, it is important to realize that in defining this scholarship, I will also be creating a space in which this definition operates – yet I hope to do so in a way that this space does not serve as a limiting or delineating boundary, but rather as a fluid and dynamic force: a force that simultaneously opens up, affirms, and imagines new spaces.
 
I also hope to address certain questions which are specifically pertinent to composition teachers: that is, what composition teachers ask students to do is to create, to compose – or, to produce, to generate. Yet, how does the space we allow (or deny) for this creation in some way contribute to or foster what is generated out of it? While so many scholars have (and understandably so) focused on the content of lessons, fewer have chosen to focus on (or even acknowledge) the other rhetorical elements (space being among these) which also contribute to the inventive processes that our students undergo.
 
I draw upon the foundational groundwork laid out by Bartholomae in “Inventing the University” as well as theoretical concepts laid out by Friedrich Nietzsche, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault. Through these authors, the paper is an attempt to trace connections between how traditional concepts of imagination and invention have emerged through place, and to use these connections in a way that offers yet another generative view of how place not only contributes to generation, but might be manipulated (or, at the very least, addressed as a viable contributing factor) to classroom composition.
 
Works Consulted:
 
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies in
Writer’s Block and Other Composing-Process Problems. NY: The Guilford P, 1985. 134-165.
 
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. The University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
 
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New
York: Vintage, 1973
 
Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.” CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform, 2012.
 
Warnock, Mary. Imagination. Berkeley: U California P, 1978.