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.
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.
RSS Feed
