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?