reflections

I am happy to be reading our concerns about the portfolio requirement and our curriculums here, because, alone and cautious in my novitiate, I have thought many of the same things.

I don't believe that instruction in writing can be standardized, and the impulse to do so appears to be solely what drives the portfolio system here at Cortland. I always thought the portfolio was intended to be a place where students could look at what they had written and reflect on what they had achieved or whether they had succeeded in pushing themselves to learn something new over the semester's course at all, that it was intended to serve a human and qualitative purpose rather than a statistical one, that it was intended to be a place where student and teacher together could pause and remark on what the student had become, and often, on how the instructor had changed as well.

Isn't the event of being presented, as a teacher, with two or three revised pieces by a student an opportunity to address concerns beyond those of the academy? It is a time to say, "You know, student X, you really are a compassionate conservative. I mean, on the one hand you have been truly moved by individuals in your life, and you write about that movement with genuine intensity, and yet, at the same time you are willing to consign broad segments of the population to unremitting drudgework in only questionably democratic workplaces because they have taken drugs or because they did poorly in school. You understand both caring and callousness and reconcile them both in a really compelling way in what you have written this semester. But the personal bottom line that comes through in your work is finally caring, not coldness--those who care about those around them and about what they do are worth the world to you, but the others? You have no heart for them. Is that accurate do you think? Did you know that about yourself? I have thoroughly enjoyed reading these papers."

The portfolio should give us the opportunity to synthesize two or more papers into a coherent whole, to be moved by the whole, and to share the argument that that whole suggests to us with our student. I guess I really do disagree with Vaughn's idea that the exersize of synthesis in our writing assignments is a hopelessly academic affair. We relegate it to the academy to our enduring detriment. It's hard to see how education of any kind could take place without it--which is why its seeming absence from the portfolio system here is so disconcerting.

I don't care for the Wikipedia project much, because that does seem more terminally academic, and insufficiently personalized for a comp class. I really think that what we are doing as comp teachers is helping students become comfortable with who they are and what their prejudices are through the vehicle of writing, so that they will be able to orient their research in whatever subject they are majoring in most efficiently. With regard to the hypothetical student I was addressing a paragraph ago, I think that guy needs to know that caring and focus are the important thing for him, so that he might consider orienting his career at Cortland toward subjects and subtopics that will give him an avenue for exploring them. If he were doing sociology, he might consider themes of gentleness or societal cohesion or the lack of human recognition in popular culture. And he would understand how deeply he hated the absence of these things, and guard against being too caustic in writing about it. If he were a health major, he might look at the physiological effects of friendship and companionship and their relation to a salubrious lifestyle. I had all kinds of kids in my classes, so many different writers and thinkers, none of which will have a clue what to do with their futures if nobody in their lives tries to really engage with what they are saying and tells them that a) it's OK to think as they do and b) college is the perfect place to explore their ideas.

The saddest thing about the portfolio was that I never got to see it--the portfolio was compiled for the phantom instructor. The students gave them to me and then I passed them off to others. I graded them on what I saw in class and over the course of their many revisions, but I didn't have the benefit of the portfolio experience of them.

I'm not prescribing my methods of teaching comp. What I love about Cortland is that every CPN classroom is so different from the next. Students need to be able to choose among diverse mentors of writing, and in that we are all so various and insist on that variety we might have a chance of addressing the unpredicable intellectual needs of our student body. So adopting somebody else's idea of what comp should be (Harvard or Michigan) at our school seems beside the point.

Open Source Composition

An interesting article in Computers and Composition on "Open Source and Academia." For those who don't know, "open source" refers to a particular mode of software development in which the programming code for an application is freely available (as opposed to being encrypted proprietary information as in the case of Microsoft or Apple). The result of this is that a public community of programmers can work together to improve an application.

Where am I going with this? Well, this article discusses how the Open Source model might be applied to education, and specifically to composition. The fundamental difference here is between our traditional notion of authorship, which is individualistic, private, and proprietary, and a contemporary "networked" mode of composition/production, which is collective, public, and held in common. The Wikipedia is a good example of how this model works in terms of general knowledge production. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is openly revisable by anyone who wishes to register and join the collective process. The process relies on a type of application known as "wikis" (hence the name).

[Now one might wonder about the accuracy of the entries, given this public process. It is a fair question. All Open Source projects rely upon the community keeping track of itself and correcting errors as they are discovered. Of course, one might also place this in comparison with "official" sources of information from government to news media with an equal degree of skepticism.]

Anyway, the point here (and in this article) is to conceive of composition as a site where writing pedagogy follows the open source model. The article gives several examples, but I will give another.

Let's say we did a wiki pilot program with ten sections of CPN 100, approx. 200 students and five instructors. We could pick a topic, let's say youth culture. We could identify three or four readings that would provide us with basic methods for cultural analysis. We then select a couple online periodicals/sites (b/c they're free) to read regularly. We would ask the students to read these sites and then produce weekly entries for an "encyclopedia" on youth culture. The application would require students to log in so we could track their activities to ensure they were participating. In addition to posting new material each week, starting in week three we might also ask them to revise or extend an existing article. Part of their task would be to create links between their posts and others.

In class then we could discuss the posts in a variety of ways from style to audience to argumentative structures. We could discuss the importance of having references and incorporating citations as a way to establish legitimacy for an argument. We could chart the most-linked-to articles and discuss their popularity. In addition, we could ask students to write reflective pieces on their work, on the idea of writing process, and so on.

By the end of the semester, we would have a wikipedia on youth culture with over 2500 entries and a million words. Now imagine what it would be like if we did it with all the sections of CPN 100 ... and CPN 101 the following semester ... and we continued doing this for 3-5 years.

We would be able to create a substantial record of youth culture written in the voice of Cortland's students. We could create a product that might actually be useful for high school teachers and other college instructors.

Imagine what would happen if we opened participation to all of SUNY or any comp instructor anywhere. The diversity of perspective could be invaluable.

And do you think our students would be learning something? Would they be seeing themselves as writers? As writers with an audience and peers? Would they recognize the importance of revision?

one lesson

A side-effect of the current portfolio process: students learn that an offstage "someone else" determines whether they pass the course or not and therefore, in the case of an "unacceptable" portfolio, the gradeless portfolio assessment trumps actual grades. The portfolio process can come across as a subtle undercutting of their instructor, for it showcases the instructor's limited ability to make her own decisions about final grades.

The power of the "instructor behind the curtain" may in practice be checked and kept in balance, but for the student the threat does not produce better writing. It encourages more finger pointing and blaming, especially in CTEs and online teacher review sites. The skipped-record tune is something along these lines: "Didn't help me pass portfolio." Even the positive "Will help u pass portfolio!" is depressing because the words reinforce the role change: CPN instructor not as legitimate educator, but "helper" or aide.

moving forward

Things have been a little quiet here for a while, so perhaps I'll see if I can get something started. We had a interesting exchange about values. Some folks here and some folks in the hall have remarked on their agreement with my basic value that CPN might take as its goal helping students to see themselves as writers (see the earlier discussion for more detail on that). It's good to see that we are on the same page, but I'm sure there are those who would disagree. As benign as that value sounds, it stands in opposition, from my perspective anyway, with many of the traditional practices of composition, many of which are institutionalized in our program.

As I am writing this, I imagine most of you are involved in the process of mid-semester portfolio review. Generally speaking, in rhet/comp scholarship, portfolios serve as a vehicle of reflection on process and development. I am an outsider in the field of rhet/comp in that (among other things) I don't ascribe to the theory of development (i.e. that writing abilities develop in a roughly linear progression). However, setting that aside, I do understand that "best practices" (to use academic/corporate speak) in portfolio-driven pedagogy DO NOT establish portfolios as a gatekeeping mechanism. By doing as we do, we transform what is meant to be a reflective moment into a critical/performative one.

A typical comp portfolio would include drafts, peer and teacher comments, and other material that documents the writing process and a pattern of developing writing skills. It might include a reflective text where the student would analyze this material to identify this developmental pattern. In evaluative terms it would be a place where the student would do a self-assessment of the work s/he has completed. From the instructor's perspective, it becomes an opportunity for one to get a better sense of a student's writing process and perhaps evaluate the process.

Needless to say, portfolio pedagogy can prove to be labor intensive for both student and teacher.

In transforming portfolio evaluation into a PRODUCT-oriented test, we instutionalize a practice that undermines the fundamental pedagogical values of composition as a discipline. By creating committees and passing the portfolios around we do our best to decontextualize student writing, which is exactly opposite of the purpose portfolios are supposed to serve.

Although I realize quite well that I am stepping into a mine field by saying this, our portfolio evaluation process contravenes every principle of composition pedagogy I can imagine. It is simply bad pedagogy.

As you may know, the portfolio system in place here was designed to appease faculty in other departments who were concerned about the composition faculty upholding "standards." This attitude is part of a long history in the academy of treating composition as a pseudo-discipline. It is an anti-intellectual position that I will not warrant.

Such arguments stem from faculty who know little or nothing about the teaching of writing. They want to believe that there is nothing to know about teaching writing, that anyone can do it. It is a belief that stems from their own uncertainty about their writing ability. They want to believe that good writing is simply about correctness and following certain stylistic rules because they believe this is something they can manage.

We cannot allow other's ignorance to be the foundation of our program.

I've been through the portfolio process a couple times. You are doing it right now. Tell me exactly what the students are learning. That writing is about getting it "right"? That good writers are people who don't make (many) mistakes? That composition is about jumping through hoops? What?

more from Amy

Yes, yes, yes—Alex’s last paragraph says it nicely: our students are dulled (and maybe we are, too). A critic I’m reading currently for my ENG 306 class refers to it as being “dumbed down” (Carol Bly in _Beyond the Writer’s Workshop_). She targets junk culture and anti-intellectual bias as culprits, as well as outmoded writing instruction—something Alex's posts address, too.

CPN also lends itself to assignment topics (and composition readers) that are dumbed down. The reading selections are conventional and—especially in the argument readers—about as inspiring as cheese wiz. Predictable topics, predictable responses—and the ones that cater to the “junk culture” (under the auspices of being “relevant” to students) may be the worst. It’s hard to get excited about much of the material presented to students in anthologies as examples of “good writing.”

When I was hired as an adjunct, I remember being told about constructing the content of CPN classes: “Teach whatever you want—except literature.” Many of us, thankfully, do not abide by that rule, but there it is. What we are assigning (not necessarily the essay assignments themselves) may be part of the problem.


Amy

Realistic & Pragmatic Objectives for CPN Students

Before any genuine re-assessment of the composition courses can begin, it seems that we need to determine the immediate and long-term objectives for our students—not necessarily for ourselves. After completing our writing courses, what are the realistic expectations in terms of competency and practical application?

I submit that many “Composition” (Freshman Writing) programs (not necessarily Professional Writing programs), fall short in adequately preparing students for the types of writing they are likely to use and need beyond graduation. Far too many composition programs focus largely on preparing students primarily for future academic writing, but fall woefully short in preparing them for writing beyond academia. The notion that the majority of our students will end up in lofty professions wherein academic writing and scholarly research will be a significant component of their everyday discourse is a misnomer. Many of our graduates are more likely to end up as managers of “The Gap” or in mid-level management positions at IBM, General Motors, etc.

The notion that they will be consistently writing synthesis, multiple source, or even argumentative papers is rather unlikely. The skills that would better serve them are more in the areas of group project collaboration, integrating multiple media content, preparing presentations, integrating traditional text documents with other Office applications, such as Excel, Access, Publisher, etc.

In my judgment, any reform to our Composition program needs to go beyond preparing students for future academic writing only. If we do not adequately prepare them for the types of “real” writing that they are more likely to encounter in their respective careers, then we will have only half fulfilled our mission.

Vaughn

choosing writing

I don't see you as a wet blanket, Amy. I think you raise some serious issues. I agree completely that many students are deeply resistant to seeing themselves as writers, and I believe there are multiple ideological/cultural forces at work behind that resistance. I am not suggesting that CPN should or could produce professional writers ready to be paid for their labors. I am instead suggesting that CPN's goal should be to give students the opportunity to incorporate the practice of writing into their lives, both as a mode of learning and as a means of achieving ends.

I agree this is a difficult task in that the majority of students in CPN do not see themselves as writers and do not write on a regular basis. Indeed many may not write except when it is absolutely necessary. As Amy writes, such students may have difficulty putting together a sentence. With many, the challenge may be further complicated by the fact that they have received poor writing instruction in the past and/or had very negative experiences involving red ink. They believe that writing well is just a trick of some kind. Or they believe that writing well is a matter of learning certain facts, like grammar, for example. Such beliefs reflect the models of education that have largely structured their schooling experiences across the disciplines.

However, those of us who are writers, and those of us who teach and study writing, know this is not the case. For 70 years study after study has demonstrated quantifiably the marginal at best improvement in long-term writing performance associated with grammar instruction. In more philosophic terms, I daresay that even at the inception of rhetorical instruction in Classical Greece, it was understood that effective writing was not a matter of learning surface techniques. Socrates says as much in The Phaedrus.

If our students are going to write well it is because they will write on a regular basis. In this they are no better or worse than the rest of us. Unfortunately we and they cannot even count on their coursework to ensure that they will write regularly. It will have to be something that they choose for themselves.

Convincing students to make such a choice, or even to recognize they have the right/responsibility to make such a choice, is part of the even more difficult challenge of demonstrating to students that now they are in college their education is their own responsibility. Undoubtedly many students will never recognize this responsibility, and they will deny themselves their own education as a result. Undoubtedly many students will never take on the responsibility of becoming a writer and they may discover that while their degree got them a job, their lack of writing skills prevents them from being successful at it.

In my view, CPN can be an invitation to participate in the experience of intellectual growth college represents and the intimate role writing plays in that experience. If students refuse the invitation (and perhaps many will), so be it. However, I would hope that they realize that they are refusing it, that intellectual growth and its rewards are there for them if they choose to step up to the challenge. My main concern is that many of them may be so downtrodden and dulled by high school that they cannot see or understand what is before them. CPN can help them see that choice, understand its consequences, and demonstrate that making the choice to learn is their privilege, if not their responsibility, as a human and a citizen of the world.

Did I say that? Huh, how uncharacteristicly earnest of me...

from Amy

I’ll be the wet blanket: I remain skeptical of the idea that CPN’s purpose is to help students think of themselves as writers. Advanced writing classes, yes. CPN, how? Does an intro class on geology create geologists? If out of that class there are a few students who want to dedicate their lives to writing or geology, fabulous. But the majority of the students are in CPN for one reason only: because they have to be. Most recognize they must be able to write competently for their other classes, but they could care less about the higher virtues of a writer’s mind and life. I approach math in a similar way: I’m glad I learned to add, subtract, and multiply (we’ll skip division if you don’t mind), but I care less about mathematical theory and no amount of talk about the universe’s mathematical essence is going to make me think of myself as a mathematician. Literature and writing are my chosen loves, yes. But I don’t think they’re the only loves to choose—music and fine art and gardening (and maybe even math) are other forms good for love, too.

I agree that we should throw students material that is unconventional and challenging and exciting. But I throw it out knowing that not everyone is going to get excited by it in the same ways. Those that do will (I hope) take more writing classes and learn to see themselves as writers.

In the meantime, there’s a student (times 20) in CPN who can’t write a complete sentence, doesn’t understand punctuation, and can’t organize an essay. It’s not creative nonfiction—it’s non-nonfiction. In an intro-level academic writing class, I think my approach to that student needs to be practical.

I said at the start I remain skeptical, but not totally closed or committed to my point of view. It’s nice to have this forum to bounce around these ideas and to speak about our profession so candidly. Next!

Yours,
Amy

My Two Cents

I agree with Alex about 99% (I don't want to confront students with material that is so disturbing or offensive that they totally disengage themselves) and wish ardently that we could break away from the notion that we are teaching as a service to the other departments (in effect, saying we are preparing students for certain majors or professions is tantamount to the same thing). Do we not want people tp learn to write in the same way that we want them to learn to read--broadly, variably, voraciosly, creatively? Rather than anticipating what the administration and other faculty will or will not let us do, let's imagine what we would most like to do, and work backward from there toward the compromises we will inevitably have to make. If we are preparing people for a lifetime of writing (a lifetime which could extend sixty or seventy years beyond the months spent in our classes and into a world we can hardly even conceive of now!), what kinds of experiences and knowledges do we need to provide?


P.S. I think Power Point is very dangerous and I would not like to see it accepted as a major part of what we assess as student "writing." Power Point dumbs students down in the same way that soundbites make people feel informed when they are't. "Reading" Power Point presentations, students come to think a small bit of the total picture is all that's important. "Writing" Power Point presentations, they come to think that when they write a word or a phrase, they are communicating a raft of unspoken context which in fact, does not exist. It makes them think they can write in shorthand and readers will fill in all the blanks for them. It's not even shorthand, because shorthand is a real code....can you tell Power Point is a pet peeve of mine?

re Alex, Mary, & Vaughn

Colleagues,

Vaughn argues that CPN courses need revising; Alex agrees, and urges us begin by identifying our goals. Alex’s key goal is to help students see themselves as writers. Ross has also echoed this concern.

We may need to consider the questions, What is a writer? and What kinds of writers can we be? Writers are, of course, concerned with process. One crucial part of the writing process that our students wrestle with is revising. Maybe we need to resurrect our discussion of the nature of revising and ways to teach it.

If we have been charged with serving the writing needs of other departments, then we also need to concern ourselves with product. Faculty in other departments want our students to write expository pieces: Randi Storch (History) requires her freshmen to write analyses; Mary McGuire (Political Science) asks her freshmen to construct arguments. Perhaps we should borrow from the Harvard model, which includes analysis and argument in the first of the Expository Writing courses.

Vaughn links writing to the product demands of business. To that end…
- Business (as one frustrated Niagara Mohawk trainer reminded me about 12 years ago) needs employees who can write clearly and concisely, regardless of the specific product.
- Business consultant Tom Peters has often emphasized the need for creative risk-takers. Students can view themselves in that light by understanding that their thesis statements are (should be) pushing the envelope of our understanding. In that way, those messages are argumentative and they expose their authors to scrutiny – a risky situation.
- “Literacy” now includes technological skills. A few months ago, an article in either the New York Times or the Syracuse Post Standard (I have the article at my campus office, tomorrow I’ll post the reference) reviewed some universities’ steps to incorporate multi-media in their writing programs. We could take a similar move by allowing students to use PowerPoint for certain assignments, perhaps minor ones (e.g. journals) at first.

In my Sci-Fi class (not a WI course), I’ve offered students the chance to use PowerPoint and other media to satisfy the requirements of major assignments. For those students who have taken the risk, the results have often been encouraging, if not successful.

Two other comments:
- Students can take advantage of their individual learning styles preferences as they move through the invention and revision processes. In this way, writing can be more “comfortable,” enjoyable, and productive for the student.
- Students can realize the relevance of their language skills – including speaking and listening skills – through service-learning courses.

john