Reflection: Writing Center Pedagogy

I am a fan of Writing Center pedagogy but a version of it that works alongside the classroom. I think the pedagogy of the writing center needs to interact and cooperate with the classroom pedagogy as a way of making the transition between these spaces smooth for the student. If the writing center is not ultimately helping the student improve the things the teacher is trying to improve (based on learning objectives and outcomes) than the student is not succeeding (even if the writing is getting better on some level). At the end of the day, students will be assessed and the things happening in the writing center should be reflected positively in that assessment.

Reading Response: Writing Center Pedagogy

Writing Center pedagogy is different yet similar to classroom based pedagogies. They are similar in the goal they are trying to achieve; improve writing (even going so far as to consider higher order issues over lower order issues). Where they differ is the type of interaction and the nature of that dialectic relation. Student-tutor is much different than student-professor, and for several reason. Tutors are not grading the paper. Tutors likely do not have as many students whose work they need to evaluate. Tutors can often empathize better because they are likely also students. On the other hand, teachers will likely know more about the subject and thus NOT need to be taught the material as much. Teachers know what they are looking for as well, so the feedback can be more directly appropriate to that which will be graded. Teachers also have many more students whose work they must evaluate.

Writing Center pedagogy is important, particularly for students who seek out the writing center of their own volition. I agree, however, that the writing center cannot be forced on students and thus the pedagogy cannot be forced on students either. It is important to have a system in place for the students who use the writing center though, particularly ESL students (and thus some incorporation of ESL pedagogy). A combination of pedagogies that operate and develop based on the space in which they exist can only be good for those spaces. Pedagogies influence spaces and having separate pedagogies for separate spaces is logical.

Reflection: Activity Theory

This article highlights the issue of WAC versus discipline-specific teaching. The ball-handling analogy is spot on but I wonder if a good analogy makes up for the advantage of learning to write a genre within the context of that genre. Certainly, I am looking for a justification of a comp course (especially if I plan to be teaching comp courses), and the idea of teaching "about writing" is a good direction. Rhetorical approaches to teaching a comp course continues to feel like the right approach. Teach students how to look at a new genre, give them tools and skills, then use as universal of a genre as possible to let them apply those skills (research paper since almost everything will need some sort of research).

Reading Response: Activity Theory

Activity Theory is the analysis of human behavior and consciousness, and is a theory which can be applied to composition and writing. Activity Theory has five parts:

• Historical Development
• HIstory is essential to the working of an activity. Culture (sometimes phylogenic) maintains the tools and gives them historical context
• Tool Mediation
• Changes in human behavior and consciousness is mediated by other human beings through the use of tools. History is human interaction with tools over time.
• Dialectical Structure
• Change is not one directional. One discipline may borrow and transform a tool of another discipline, and this may change how the original discipline views or uses that tool.
• Relational Analysis
• Unit of analysis in AT is the relations among the participants and their shared cultural tools. Perspectives range from individual to broad cultural views
• Zones of Proximal Development
• One can not achieve an object(ive) alone, and thus they must change themselves and their tools dialectically

The idea is that because writing is not an autonomous activity (that is, one does not learn to write in a vacuum), AT can be applied to writing because of the dialectic nature of writing. We can look at the tools of writing, the historical context of writing (say, within a particular discipline), the dialectic that occurs between students or between student and teacher, we can analyze that relation, and we can consider the places in which one learns to write (home, school, tutor session, etc.), and with this information we can consider how to improve an Activity System which has as its objective the improvement of one's writing.

There are two sides to composition theory though: WAC and discipline-specific. WAC looks for universal skills that a comp course could teach a student regardless of their major, skills that will apply no matter where they end up. This is similar to a "ball-handling" gym class; if you can teach a student how to handle a ball, he can theoretically apply some arbitrary skill to any ball (baseball, basketball, football, etc.). Others, however, say writing a genre cannot be learned outside of the discipline for to which that genre applies.

The solution to the WAC versus discipline-specific argument suggested by Russell is teaching "about writing" as opposed to teaching one "to write". That is, what can we teach students about the act of writing that isn't specific to one genre, and can what we are teaching be sufficiently universal enough to apply to any writing the student may do from creative writing to research writing? 

Reflection: Genre Pedagogy

Genre pedagogy will play a big part in my teaching portfolio primary because of the "genre awareness" approach. As a future teacher of composition, and being aware of the WAC conversation, I think it is important to provide student with tools and strategies for appropriating genres rather than teaching a specific genre outside of its natural environment. Our students need to learn from us a tool (writing) that will be used in any discipline they pursue. This is a vastly different dynamic than other disciplines have with English...other disciplines aren't really teaching things that the English-focused student needs to know. That isn't to say it isn't fair, rather that a teacher needs to be aware of what he or she is being asked to accomplish.

Using genre awareness, the class can focus on making a student's transition from the FYC classroom into their discipline of a choice a little easier. By providing tools and strategies, we are giving them more than just tips and tricks to get by; we are giving them confidence in their ability to analyze, participate, critique and transform the genre(s) they will be operating in both inside and outside of the university.

Reading Response: Genre Pedagogy

Genre pedagogy is a very influential method of teaching that influences a lot of composition classrooms, and for good reason. When you consider genres the way Carolyn Miller does (Genre as Social Action, 1984), that is, writers in recurrent situations taking similar rhetorical actions and creating typified expectations, you begin to see genres in everything from "grocery lists to hypertexts" (Devitt, 146). However, there isn't just one approach to teaching a genre pedagogy. Devitt outlines three unique approaches:

• teaching particular genres
• give students access to and control of particular genres
• teaching genre awareness
• help students learn how to learn unfamiliar genres regardless of medium or context
• teaching genre critique
• help students see the cultural and ideological nature of genres to make their own choices and gain critical understanding

While Devitt describes each of these approaches as having "value and limitations for different students," she concludes that combining the three approaches will "help students act rhetorically and consciously within and beyond the situations they will encounter throughout their lives" (147).

That brings us to the pedagogy itself and the choice between teaching individual genres versus teaching genre awareness. The difference is one of distance, that is, interacting with tools versus just knowing about them. Both angles have pros and cons depending on who you ask. When it comes to teaching individual genres, one group may say that doing so provides students with explicit rules and tricks that will be useful during writing while another group may say that a genre is too complex to be learned outside of where it naturally occurs.

When it comes to teaching genre awareness, it is no longer about interacting with a genre but rather about gaining tools and strategies for appropriating a genre when the need arises. As with teaching individual genres, there are pros and cons to teaching genre awareness. While it does teach meta-cognitive reflection (thinking about your thinking) and discourages formulaic writing, there is a lack of control when it comes to source material since teachers will often give students control over their genre of choice. This means students are gathering their own samples and, in some cases, the samples aren't very good.

Reflection: Process Pedagogy

I really like process theory, at least at first glance. I think the shift in focus from end product to the process of production is what sells the theory so well. It meshes very well with my core belief that the unique voice of the writer must be preserved above all else. If the end product is all that matters, students may be tempted to regurgitate that which has worked in the past instead of trying to fit themselves into the discourse. My opinion is that if you are not presenting yourself as a unique capsule of experience with an authentic view and important contribution, you are only learning how to follow, how to remain silent. Standing on theories and pedagogies that draw on one's unique background and focus on one's development is a key part of my philosophy.