betajames

Every child knows that play is nobler than work.  He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard.  Games of chance require a wager to have any meaning at all.  Games of sport involve the skills and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them.  But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.

Cormac McCarthy. Blood Meridian. New York: Vintage, 1992.  p. 249

Above is a Wordle of the most popular terms in my notes on ENG 567's very own pecha kucha night last week. These presentations constituted precursors to full drafts of their semester-end projects.

Despite the commonalities evidenced in the Wordle above, each pecha kucha presented was unique in approach and theory. Annas, Bartholomae, Bleich, Elbow, Eldred, Freire, Lunsford, and Tompkins were among the names dropped in the presentations. One put forth an idea of FYC with a more intimate connection to the writing center. Another focused on basic writing via the contact zone. A couple suggested cultural and/or media studies as main areas of focus. At least two appeared to take elements of ENG 567 as direct inspiration, given plans to facilitate student writing via Twitter and/or Posterous. A few wrestled with the idea/importance of peer review, expressing some uncertainty about its real value. Many were concerned about audience awareness and writing voice. Many were curious about the use of technology in facilitating the development of skills. These current and future teachers of writing want to help students "forget it's a writing class" or to at least help them "to hate writing less."

The pecha kucha presentations focusing on research rather than syllabus development still related to composition pedagogy and theory. One drew connections to online roleplaying games and martial arts sparring sessions; another related the development and history of vampirism to the field of rhetoric and writing. Much like the book reviews performed earlier in the semester, these academic contributions look to be strong.

At this point, I have no concerns or worries about anyone's work, only some impatience in reading their research drafts and syllabi. For as green as some students might see themselves, I know I have much to learn from them.

The last two weeks witnessed the last two student-led facilitations of the semester. The respective areas of focus were basic writing and technology. Each facilitation began with an excellent distillation of the assigned readings before moving into discussions and exercises. What I find of interesting note now are the similarities. There were discussions of literacy and what constituted "necessary skills." There was talk of the importance of and need for immersion for both students and teachers, how the underpinnings of basic writing pedagogy as well as teaching with technology stress empathy and interaction. That just as we are all users of technology, we are also basic writers, communicating via symbols in a variety of interfaces, screens, and windows. That we have myriad opportunities to learn from students now about their own language as well as more about ours, to realize the differences might not be so great. 

Perhaps it is because of these similarities that we do not have a unified theory of basic writing or teaching with technology. Our ways and means of writing are so apparent and so many now. Technology is so ubiquitous. And academicats are so persistent in our pecha kucha presentations (which lie ahead this week!).

This possible relative of Ashley has been hanging around the house the past two days. It walks right up to me, so it doesn't seem to be feral. It would walk right into the house if I let it. It has been in a fight, has a limp and a mangled ear. I don't know what to do. Adoption's not really an option.

With the book review assignment completed this past Sunday, I thought it might be helpful/useful to those in and beyond ENG 567 to have a central place from which to access all reviews (save one). Below are links to and snippets of each review:

Beach, Richard, Chris Anson, Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch, and Thom Swiss.  Teaching Writing Using Blogs, Wikis, and other Digital Tools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, 2009. Reviewed by Michelle English.

an excellent reference tool for both instructors who are just learning how to navigate the digital environment and those who already engage students in this type of writing.

Birkenstein, Cathy, and Gerald Graff. They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010. Reviewed by Ashley Armstrong.

a wonderful book that not only provides students with the essential answers that they will be asking for when writing, but the two authors do it in a way that allows the students to feel in control.

Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. Reviewed by John McKeown.

Perhaps the largest benefit I could see composition teachers gaining from reading Bogost's texts is the knowledge that getting students to become better writers could be accomplished through the use of procedural rhetoric

Brueggemann, Brenda Jo, and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson. Disability and the Teaching of Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.Martin’s, 2008. Reviewed by Megan Breidenstein.

This sourcebook is a must for anyone going into the field of teaching composition, writing center work, or who just wants to have more knowledge on disabilities in academia.

Fleckenstein, Kristie S. Vision, Rhetoric and Social Action in the Classroom. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009. Reviewed by Tara Moreno.

Fleckenstein fails to clearly define what social action has to do with the composition classroom until the very end of the book.

Kolln, Martha, and Loretta Gray. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects. 6th ed. NY: Longman, 2010. Reviewed by Melodie Barker.

What makes the book different from traditional grammar books is that it draws on discoveries from composition researchers and linguists and uses a rhetorical point of view to explain grammar.

Mao, LuMing, and Morris Young. Representations: Doing Asian American Rhetoric. Utah: Utah State University Press, 2008. Reviewed by Becky Woolever.

The purpose of the book was to counter the elimination, or as the authors state “institutional forgetting” of a culture and its practices.

Otte, George, and Rebecca Mlynarczyk. Basic Writing. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2010. Reviewed by Joshua Dugas.

the authors’ choice to reexamine [basic writing] in comparison to the English field and external factors bodes well.

Rice, Jeff. The Rhetoric of Cool: Composition Studies and New Media. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2007. Reviewed by Kim Clark.

This book is definitely suitable for any serious instructor looking to understand why incorporating digital media into the writing curriculum is important.

By naming-- or at least attempting to name-- feminist composition theory, Siebler is moving the discourse forward.

Smit illustrates just how vital it is that a new approach to teaching composition be developed and implemented.

Tinberg, Howard, and Jean-Paul Nadeau. The Community College Writer: Exceeding Expectations. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2010. Reviewed by Gia Huff.

the answers to the questions the authors posed were so interspersed throughout the book that I’m not even sure if they answered them all.

There hasn't been much writing here because there's been a fair amount of writing elsewhere. Emails to groups and individuals as well as tweets present a cumulative rival to the blogging that might have otherwise happened here. I think it appropriate, though, to mark the end of this particular week. In a way, it has already been marked by the last student-led facilitation of the semester, which occurred this past Tuesday. In each section of #345tw, the facilitation was a fitting end to the most overt collaborative aspects of the course. The M1 group concluded their facilitation with some friendly reminders about what technical writing is, does, and why. Earlier on, there were helpful nods to technologies that might assist in the production of technical documents as well as some forward-looking comments specific to the task analysis. The M2 group's facilitation held an exclusive focus on the task analysis that I think handled a potentially complex document format/style quite well. Awareness of audience and the tasks that audience will undertake are of paramount importance in technical communication, so I'm glad to see students' work reflecting that. 

Writing of work, blogging (posts & comments) and tweeting will be with us until Week 15 (and, make no mistake, they are collaborative in nature), but the facilitations and projects are over and done with. Our major focus now is the individual project, producing the documents necessary to its ultimate production. Blogging and tweeting can (and perhaps should) be in the service of that project and its constituent parts. We are surely in the proving grounds now, having compiled knowledge of and experience with elements of technical communication and now ready to perform. 

Even as I write now, my Twitter feed updates with the hashtag "#345tw." Audience analsyes are streaming in, the latest knowledge performances, and I look forward to reading them in the week almost upon us. 

Also: #345tw students should look for individual emails about overall course progress. These will continue the conversations begun earlier in the semester about being in accordance with the grading contract. Many of those conversations were fruitful and helpful, so I trust future discussions will be, too.

This spring, I'll be guiding my third graduate-level course in the MA in English program at the University of Michigan-Flint. Listed as ENG 560: Topics in Writing and Rhetoric, my current vision for the course concerns the execution of a booksprint. To be more specific, ENG 560 will be an eight-week collaborative writing project. The focus will be an issue, theme, or topic within rhetoric and writing studies. The issue, theme, or topic will be identified and decided upon by students and instructor. 

The result of our work will not be an edited collection, though. Most every graduate course concludes with a series of essays somewhat related to the overall focus of the course. That is not what will happen in ENG 560. The emphasis instead will be cohesion over collection. That is, we will be aiming for a cohesive, if not comprehensive, codex. There will be an overall argument and point to the work. Chapters will relate to and succeed each other in an academic, linear fashion.

Of course, the overall length of the book will depend on student enrollment. For example, if the minimum number of students take the course (10), we should be looking at a 150-page book. If the maximum number of students take the course (15), we should be looking at a book of over 200 pages. For either scenario to happen, students will need to work in pairs on individual chapters. That is, there will be two primary researchers/writers for every chapter. As such, I see my primary roles as facilitator and executive editor. If all those involved in this project approve of the end result, I may very well drum up external interest and/or pitch the text to publishers.

Given my preferred area of focus, i.e., rhetoric and writing studies, current ENG 567 students will be better prepared and primed for ENG 560. This should not dissuade others in the MA program from enrolling, though. 

ENG 560 will be mixed mode, meeting every Tuesday night from May 9 until June 28. Here's a quick shot of each week:

Week 1 - introducing & brainstorming
Week 2 - delegating & researching

Week 3 - researching

Week 4 - researching

Week 5 - writing
Week 6 - writing

Week 7 - editing

Week 8 - finishing up

The technology/technologies we use to facilitate the entire process will also be decided upon by students and instructor. Google Docs is the foremost possibility in my mind right now, but I'm very open to other recommendations/suggestions.

I'm also open to questions and concerns from current students and otherwise interested parties. Your thoughts?

miketodd07, thirdworldgirl-, and many others on Tumblr are liking and reblogging this quote attributed to John Steinbeck, but it isn't really a quote at all. It's Ronald Wright's paraphrase of something Steinbeck allegedly said or wrote. What's missing from the 'quote' is "John Steinbeck once said." That's important. Wright's being ignored and uncredited for his paraphrase; Steinbeck's being quoted in an improper way. 

I suppose I'm overdue for including a "cite Tumblr, fail the assignment" statement in my syllabi.

This marked our last week within what Fulkerson called CCS axiology (critical, cultural studies, feminist). Of the three lumped together here, I think feminist composition theory may have been the most clearly grasped. This was due in no small part to the facilitators, concerned as they were with defining necessary terms. Ideology is not criticism is not composition theory, they posited in a convincing manner. Oatmeal chocolate chip cookies as well as references to Lady Gaga and Xena helped bring this point home.

What appears to separate feminist composition theory from critical and cultural studies theories concerns self-criticism and reflection. At least in how facilitators framed it, feminist composition theory has a greater degree of openness in terms of active pedagogical changes, that if an activity or assignment doesn't work well, a feminist pedagogue may be more likely to reflect on its failure and perhaps even engage students in discussion of that failure. It was on this point that I later raised the question of whether or not it was on the basis of this aspect that Fulkerson separated one feminist approach from CCS. I see now that I was wrong to pose such a query. Fulkerson declares one feminist approach as concerned with raising students' consciousness, with having them come to voice (666). In light of this, perhaps an argument could be made that Fulkerson overlooked this self-critical/reflective aspect.

Much of the conversation beyond the facilitation signaled deviations, but not to a distressing degree. Of course, I say this having instigated such deviations to some degree, curious as I am about the processes and spaces of writing. Perhaps some of the discussion also had to do with the facilitation and the readings for the week, given nods to the importance of fun and joy and conveying passion and viewing the class as a developing community.

Also, despite any thoughts to the contrary, I have considered the suggestion of a location change for next week's class. With many more reasons for denial than approval, I look forward to meeting with all of you at our regularly scheduled time in our regularly scheduled classroom. If you are at all curious about the reasons why, I'd be happy to discuss them via email.