I've written two personal theoretical papers thus far in my academic career. In the first I attempted to ascertain my personal pedagogy, and in the second I attempted to compound that personal pedagogy with what I had learned after three semesters of teaching. As I consider what I would like to research for this paper I am slightly at a loss--I have many questions I could ask: what modes are still in use today and are they useful? Is writing an art, science or both? What is rhetoric's place in composition? How do we measure in improvement? But which one of these is most deserving of research? I think beginning at my teaching experience and working outward I might best discover an answer to that question.
At UMass Boston, to some degree, teaching composition was easier. I had a fun self-developed curriculum, engaged students, and a school's pedagogy that coincided completely with mine (at least as far as my naive, little mind was aware). Because the curriculum had been created with my involvement and the oversight of people much smarter than myself, every assignment, every discussion, every aspect of the class was laid out with specific purpose and intent. The students were free to discuss anything they wished, express any thought they desired (within the bounds of good manners of course) and it worked. Their thinking was recursive, their writing improved, and I was flying on cloud nine.
After teaching at UNLV this year I've discovered the student body is, as a whole, better at writing than the students at UMass, but much less involved in their personal education. There are many factors that might contribute to this, but they are of no consequence here. My point is that in this new environment with texts already chosen for me I was forced to develop my own curriculum (if I so chose) and evaluate other teaching styles. These were all very good things, and caused me to come face-to-face with my own teaching style. How do I promote recursive thinking to students that don't care? How do I lead them through a thought-process without condescending to them, or simply telling them the answer when they won't talk? How do I structure a class with a modal text book without stifling individuality?
It is these questions I entered this class with and discovered were being asked by (seemingly) everyone. I cannot help but consider the first set of possible research questions in light of my personal teaching research questions. The idea of writing as art or science seems to figure in strongly--if it is science then the modal and rhetorical analysis method should work splendidly. But it doesn't. But if it is art than the personal free expression method ought to lead to discovery and improvement--it doesn't always. This seems to indicate to me that either a) writing is both art and science (which could be said of all "arts") or b) it is art, but the theory has not been fully explored.
Perhaps, tentatively, I would offer up as the possible question: how do we promote recursive writing through thinking? This question seems to encompass all my concerns as it would need to take into account teaching methods (rhetoric vs. modal vs. inquiry-based) and the success rates of these methods--demonstrated by Hillocks most recently and other surveys we have read previously. This question seems particularly important to me, also, because in much of what we have read this semester in particular, teacher/researchers seemed involved in attempts to ferret out new or improved ways to teach writing. Everyone appears to be in agreement that recursiveness through reflexivity and revision, is key, but no one seems to agree on how best to accomplish this. I would like, therefore, to enter into this discussion--examining previously offered theories, scholarly responses to those theories, and finally offering my own thoughts to the discussion.
This would be different than a personal pedagogy paper because the focus would not be what I believe should be done specifically, or what I have done in my classroom, but rather what techniques I have read, employed, and considered seem to best promote recursive writing through thinking. This is a preliminary attempt to refine my thinking to a researchable topic and cannot, I believe, be truly narrowed until engaged in discourse. I have already engaged several readings myself, but am unsure how best to pursue a contributory thought to the discussion. I know that I do not believe teaching pure modes/imitation is the solution, nor do I believe heavy reliance on rhetoric to be the answer. This belief comes from a lack of recursive thought inherent in these activities. Like Kinneavy, however, I believe that to cut one part of the discussion out and rely too heavily on another is a mistake. My goal, then, would be to navigate the theories of Emig, Sommers, Perl, Berlin, Berthoff, Knoblauch and Brannon, Freire, and others in a way that, when placed alongside meta-analytical research, allows for an unbiased look at how best to educate young writers in a comprehensive way, specifically, through the use of recursive writing/thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jesscia, your question of "how to promote recursive writing through thinking" is worthwhile and timely. But it could refer to several related concepts that you might need to nail down or related to one another in your exploration of your subject. For example, we read most recently about recursive writing being tied to the revision habits of experienced writers. Are you interested specifically in revision and how to develop revision strategies? This is closely related to pedagogy (and I don't make false distinctions between theory and pedagogy, by the way, since pedagogy is the "study of" teaching, which can be theoretical).
Slightly larger concepts related to "recursive thinking" include "metacognition" or "metarhetorical" awareness of one's writing, the ability and language to critically step back and critique one's own writing. You might look at the development of metacognition or metarhetorical awareness. I searched these terms in CompPile, and one article you might look at for starters is Alice Horning and Jeanie Robertson's "Basic Writers and Revision" (2006). Metacognition tends to come out of sociolinguistic background.
This ability to critique one's own writing is also sometimes called reflection, and ties into a line of researcher in practitioner knowledge by Donald Schon, e.g., The reflecive practitioner. Schon's work is in the "theory" of practice. Interesting stuff that also gets at art vs. science binaries.
One book you should look at, which I mentioned in class, is Kathleen Yancey's Reflection in the Wriing Classroom . Yancey does some lit. review of works on reflection and also specifically talks of teaching reflection in writing. I'd be curious what you think of Yancey's work (I have a copy of this book if you want to borrow it).
Now, I also may be misunderstnading what you mean by "recursive writing." If you mean something like "critical thinking," in the vein of cultural studies cultural analysis/critique, that is a slightly different direction.
If you feel I misunderstood your "dissonace," we could discuss your project more f2f, phone, in class...
Thank you for the suggestions. I always have a hard time narrowing down topics so they are much appreciated. I might come borrow Yancey's book and start there, maybe that could give me an idea of where I would like to take this. I enjoy reading Comp research, but I never know where I would like to research myself.
Post a Comment