Yay School
My friend Chris wants to read this paper I wrote this semester and it seems the only way for him to do so is for me to post it on here.
I know I haven't blogged here. Sorry, I blog at aprilkummrow.blogspot.com now Go visit if you want and you can see where my crazy life is going. Anyway-- so here's just some piece of academic discourse for Chris.
April Kummrow
Research Paper
Understanding Writing 12/4/07
Student Authority in Academic Discourse
You don’t have to look very far to find criticism of student writing. There is no shortage of writing teachers, tutors, and composition studies scholars who will tell you the many problems they see cropping up time and time again in student papers. There is also no lack of discussion on various theoretical concepts derived from analysis of these recurring problems. There is a definite lack of solutions writing teachers can practically implement to produce better writers as well as better writing. The nature of these student writing problems ranges from sentence level grammatical errors to higher order conceptual issues. In a review of Andrea Lunsford’s “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer”, Regina Rinderer mentions in passing that “there usually is something missing in the way of assertiveness and ‘ownership of the paper’ with developmental writers” (86). This “something missing” is by no means limited to “developmental writers” as many students at all levels seem to suffer from an inability to write from a position of authority or to claim authority over their own texts. This issue is often included in scholars’ lists of student writing problems, although composition studies scholars seem far more interested in negotiations of authority in the classroom and authority of the teacher as established in teacher comments on student writing. Students know how to claim authority as they do so on a daily basis in their social interactions and non academic discourse communities, often without realizing it. The somewhat neglected and overlooked problem of students writing without authority is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. Composition studies scholars have argued that a solution to the authority problem is to have students write about subjects in which they are already authorities because they will transfer that authority to their academic writing. However, through my research I have found that this is not the case because of student adherence to the information transfer model of education in how they view facts, opinions, and knowledge claims and their authority to make those claims be it in an academic context or not.
It should come as no surprise that student writers have difficulty in writing from a position of authority when participating in academic discourse. As students, it could be argued that they have no authority. Students are not as knowledgeable as the experts they are critiquing. Where professionals and scholars have months and years to research a single topic, students have mere weeks and this is stacked on top of other classes, part time jobs, and social demands on student time. Scholars already have a knowledge base and background with the subject in question whereas students usually need to develop that base before they can understand the research they are doing. The experts in a field have proof of authority in the form of a PhD attached to their name whereas students have yet to earn a degree. Professionals also have an advantage over students because of their familiarity with academic writing. Scholars have written more, they know the conventions of academic discourse, and they have practice in being an authority whereas students are in the process of learning those conventions. Student writers are very aware of their own limitations in these respects and are consequently hesitant to claim authority in their writing. It is daunting to be asked to evaluate, critique, or expand upon the work of an expert when you are a mere undergraduate or high school student. Students still make an attempt at claiming authority, though their misguided efforts often result in a reliance on “reproducing acceptable truths” and “imitating the gestures and rituals of the academy” while “not having confidence enough in [their] own ideas” (Sommers 28).
One of the social demands on student time is the participation in discourse communities. With the rise of social networking websites such as Facebook and Myspace, students have growing access to online communities for those who share their interests in anything from music and movies to extra curricular activities to oddities such as the shared frustration of groups like “My Last Name Is Always Mispronounced” (there are over 50 Facebook groups dedicated to this topic alone). These groups may be nonacademic, but they are indeed discourse communities. The phenomena of “the discourse community” is defined in many different ways by different scholars but for the type of interaction I am referring to, a discourse community can be defined as “a concept of the author and audience as participants in a communication system of interconnected and interrelated individuals” or “a loose confederation of like-minded individuals” (Killingsworth 110, 112). Our academically centered minds may have difficulty seeing a Myspace group as part of a discourse community, but to explore my classification of an online forum this way, let us examine one group in particular as a case study. We will explore something I have a personal stake in, (a group I am a part of) the Relient K discourse community.
Relient K is a band from Canton, Ohio and I have been a fan of this band for the last seven years. As of the last two to three years, with the advent of Myspace especially, my Relient K discourse community has emerged and grown. Relient K fans of all ages have been contributing to the “RK” discussion just as scholars and academics contribute to the ongoing conversations about their fields and particular subjects in their area of study. Academic discourse is conducted through the publication of books, papers and articles in journals and online, through conferences and conventions where papers are presented and debates or discussions are held, and through direct contact and collaboration of scholars. There are many avenues of conducting discourse within the Relient K discourse community, (blogs, chats, fan websites, etc.) but for the purposes of this paper, I will primarily focus on one channel of communication, a Relient K focused Myspace Group called “Jon Schneck Needs A Group” or, “JSNAG”. As of December 3, 2007 there were 107 members in the group at varying levels of participation, including both male and female participants (largely female) of an average age ranging from 15-19. JSNAG was founded July 18, 2006 by 16 year old Chris Tucker from Missouri. Chris is the moderator of JSNAG and he created Jon Schneck Needs A Group because he decided he wanted to be a part of a Myspace group dedicated to each member of the band and Jon Schneck (guitarist for Relient K) didn’t have one. Group members can post topics creating a topic thread other group members can respond to in order to carry on conversation.
JSNAG’s regular posters have formed a unique community and have begun to carry on the conversation outside JSNAG posts. Group members regularly view and comment on each other’s Myspace and Facebook profiles and photo albums, read one another’s blog posts and Myspace bulletins, and some members post in other groups and in forums on the band’s official website and street team website. JSNAGers have also started to talk to one another via instant messages on AIM (AOL Instant Messenger), text messages, and phone calls. This strengthening of the community has allowed JSNAGers to view each other and what the others have to say about Relient K in different avenues. It is through the compilation of these sources, the collective contribution any particular member has made to the RK discussion that authority is gained and not through any one particular act or post.
There are several ways members have demonstrated their RK authority or their right to speak and be heard in this discourse community. JSNAGers must first establish their fan level. There is a scale of fandom which is not Relient K specific but I will use Relient K fans as examples. At the bottom of the barrel is the Casual fan, the person who recognizes and enjoys the music but attends shows seldom and irregularly. They may own at least one CD but don’t know all the words, cannot name all band members, and they are probably not familiar with the band’s older music, if they are even aware that there is older music, as casual fans often say things such as, “yeah I have Relient K’s cds, . . . both of them” (though the band has five LPs, five EPs, two Christmas CDs, a very rare demo CD and has contributed songs to several compilation albums). Then in the middle of the spectrum lives the Teeny Bopper which is typically a thirteen to sixteen year old female who is convinced she will one day marry the lead singer, Matthew Thiessen. These girls can be quite fanatic about the band (or at least about Matt) as they frequently check Relient K’s website and read Matt Thiessen’s blog. Such fans are often very active in online forums, fan sites and Myspace groups. These girls go to shows when they can get their parents to take them, often bearing small gifts for the band in the form of letters and cards, stuffed animals, completely random objects (guitarist Jon Schneck was recently given a razor and a note asking him to shave), and any assortment of cookies or candy (Skittles and Combos have been a fan staple since Relient K included a hidden track about their love of those snacks on their second LP). The best way to identify a Teeny Bopper is to look for a homemade t-shirt quoting song lyrics, proposing to Matt, or simply declaring “I ♥ RK”. At the top of the heap is the Old School/Hardcore fan. Relient K has probably been their favorite band for years and they know more facts about the band as a whole and as individual members, their conversations about the band are often more critical and evaluative than that of fans lower on the scale, they attend more shows than less devoted fans, and they have often met the band, or at least one band member. It is likely that some JSNAG members are Casual fans but active participants tend to be somewhere between Teeny Boppers and Old School/Hardcore fans. JSNAGers reveal where they are on the fan continuum throughout their postings and contributions to group discussion. Occasionally group members will gain authority by mentioning how many concerts they’ve attended, how many times they’ve met certain band members, post pictures they’ve taken with the band, or announce when a band member has responded to their e-mail or Myspace comment.
Authority isn’t only gained through expression of personal experience, however. Just as scholars discover new information or theories in their subject area and write and publish papers to reveal this information to their colleagues, JSNAGers discover new information or theories about Relient K and reveal it to their fellow fans via their topic posts. This is a successful means to gain authority as it both proves the fan has the general knowledge base, thus reinforcing their fan status, and it is evidence of their familiarity with the Relient K cannon of information; they demonstrate the ability to determine what is new and therefore of value to fellow fans. These posts are often reposted information JSNAGers have found elsewhere online such as new tour dates, new band blogs, tour journals or podcasts, new pictures or album art, links to new, rare, or side-project Relient K songs or videos, or postings about major events, such as when Relient K’s tour bus caught fire in July of 2007. These posts are linked in that they often contain information devoted Relient K fans would find out eventually, the poster is simply the one who found it first. JSNAGers seem to have an ongoing and unspoken challenge to see who can find the most and rarest information first. When a member posts something that is already known by some if not all members, others will continue the conversation but are sure to state they already knew this information and may claim another member told them already or they found it for themselves. Such was the case when moderator, Chris, posted that it was rumored Jon Schneck’s wife was pregnant which other members already suspected from reading Jon’s sister’s blog and his wife’s Myspace comments. Jon still hasn’t made an announcement on his blog, the definitive source for Jon Schneck info, so the topic is still under scrutiny. (She is due in February, but I know this because Jon told me himself and I have chosen not to reveal that to the community without his approval.) This isn’t the first time I have withheld information from the community either; in November of 2007 bassist John Warne gave my roommate and I a sneak peak at two yet to be released Woodland Forest episodes after a show in Moline, Illinois, and he expressly instructed us to reveal nothing about the episodes other than the fact that they would be released soon. (Woodland Forest is a flash cartoon animated entirely by John Warne which takes place in a fictional forest inhabited with talking trees and animals as well as cartoon versions of the band members.)
Mortensen and Kirsch claim that “authority remains for many a simple matter of common sense” (556). In my analysis of the rhetorical strategies used by JSNAG members to gain authority this seems to be true. Through a pre-concert conversation with some JSNAG members, I found they were unable to identify how someone “shows they are a good fan” (the strategies used to demonstrate authority as a Relient K fan) yet they were able to clearly rank which types of fans in general and JSNAG group members in particular were “better” than others. These value judgments do not stem from which group members are more popular, but which group members most effectively demonstrate their knowledge, experience, and value as a JSNAGer, and more importantly, as a Relient K fan.
Penrose and Geisler’s article “Reading and Writing Without Authority” sheds light on why knowledgeable students (such as JSNAG Relient K fans) have difficulty writing with authority. In this article, Penrose and Geisler come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference between a student writer and an experienced scholar’s view of knowledge. From this difference, they “articulate four epistemological premises which seem part of Rodger’s [a scholar] worldview but not Janet’s [a student]” (Penrose and Geisler 507). These premises are: texts are authored, authors present knowledge in the form of claims, knowledge claims can conflict, and knowledge claims can be tested. I will digress for a moment to address the first premise that texts are authored. Of course texts are authored. This paper didn’t just appear on my kitchen table double spaced, Times New Roman font size 12 with my name on top, and would you look at that, there’s a bibliography too! I realize Penrose and Geisler aren’t suggesting students think writing just appears, but still, I think we can trust students enough to believe they have some sense that there is an author behind the various texts they read. However, I believe the other three epistemological premises Penrose and Geisler construct are congruent with my findings.
Repeatedly, the researchers found that Janet failed to acknowledge authorship of the articles she read, though I would argue this is a direct result of her failure to grasp the premises that authors present knowledge in the form of claims, knowledge claims and conflict and knowledge claims can be tested. Without an understanding of those three premises, the authorship of a text is irrelevant because a student will view a group of texts, like Janet does, as being a “single definitive source rather than as a set of multiple voices in conversation” (Penrose and Geisler 509). A suggestion I have for this problem is to encourage or even require students to actively read and to attribute each major point directly to the author, by name, on a separate sheet of paper and to refer to this when writing their own papers. Unfortunately, while this may enforce the importance of the author, it may also case students to heavily rely on quoting experts rather than use what scholars have to say to define their own position. (My solution may be of some benefit, but it still does not address the larger problems.) Failure to insert the self into the conversation is definitely evident in Janet’s writing. She does not form her own unique, defendable stance on the issues she writes about. Rather, she presents what she sees as the factual truth sifted out of each article.
What bears the greatest connection to JSNAGers is that Janet focused on fact finding and failed to distinguish between factual information, opinion, and knowledge claims. As definitions of these terms vary from scholar to scholar, allow me to give you the definitions from which I am working. A fact is a verifiable truth or evidence which can be proven. An opinion is a personal view held on a particular issue. A knowledge claim is an attempt to justify and legitimate an opinion through the presentation and interpretation of facts. The important distinction to note is that facts reveal no personal preference or taste, opinions are entirely a matter of personal belief, and a knowledge claim is an argumentative means to persuade others that one’s opinion is correct, valuable or even merely valid. Like Janet, JSNAGers tend to report facts. Most topic posts, especially posts declaring new information, are factual truths which can be verified. Such posts are new tour dates, when a new album or video will be released, who Jon Schneck’s favorite superhero is (it’s Superman) or how the latest Woodland Forest episode concludes (a cartoon version of the drummer explodes).
JSNAGers do post opinions as well, often in response to topics such as “What’s your least favorite RK song?”, “What do you think is good fan etiquette?”, “Who would win in a fight to the death, Matt Thiessen or Chuck Norris?” While the first example of song preference is truly a matter of personal taste, the other examples are situations where JSNAGers have the opportunity to use their authority and knowledge to make and defend new knowledge claims though they seldom do so. The post asking group members to define good fan etiquette evoked responses such as “I hate when people budge in line” and “I hate it when people talk and make rude comments during slow/acoustic songs, yelling as if the music is still blaring” (JSNAG). The hypothetical situation of a death match between Thiessen and Norris also reaped responses posing theories of the outcome which relied on personal opinion, though the responses became a narration which collectively grew. Here is an partial transcript of that topic post.
“KELLY- well, to start out, Matt comes up with a song on the spot about it.......... cause he likes to do that..........ya....... . . .
CHRIS- yes! definitely. that would happen.
(the song begins)
"I was walking down the street one sunny afternoon
talking to a friend of mine
when chuck norris jumped out from the bushes and said
I don't like your kind!"
ELAINA- then matty t will find that chuck norris has is has a feeble mind so then matt thiessen will kick his behind and he will wast no time because he is matty t and he worships the animal known as the wallabee.
CHRIS- "I was walking down the street one sunny afternoon
talking to a friend of mine
when chuck norris jumped out from the bushes and said
I don't like your kind!
Well, Chuck, he has a feeble mind,
So I had to kick his behind (wasting no time),
because I am Matt T,
agile like the wallabee."
yes.
KELLY-heck yes
and Matt T. making up a song on the spot would then distract Chuck with that
and then all of a sudden he'd be like "WAAAH!!!!" (ninja sounding)
ANDY- ... the real question is sense they are both great would the world end if either one lost?
they might be locked in battle for so long that we wont get another CD, it would be bad
...
APRIL- see, I think they would end up in a battle in which it appears neither will win-
Matt may distract Chuck with his sing-song voice, but then Chuck roundhouse kicks Matt upside the head, knocking him a bit out of it -- ending his songs.
So while they're both trapped in an even match, Matt puts the side of his hand up to his mouth and calls out, "I'm begging you to be my escape!"
His words echo out across all of America in a pitch only the other members of Relient K are trained to hear.
Within moments, Jon Schneck, Matt Hoopes, and Dave Douglass leap out of the bushes to Matt's rescue. (John Warne will be a little late because he lives further away.)”
(from here the story only continues to grow more and more elaborate)
Collective narration aside, JSNAGers are unable to truly test their posts as knowledge claims because they heavily rely on both facts and opinions which are undisputable in their eyes; facts because they are verifiable truth and opinions because, though one may not agree with another about a topic, we have all been taught that everyone is entitled to their opinion after all. Perhaps JSNAGers are taking Relient K’s words in one of their songs to heart, “opinions are immunity to being told you’re wrong.”
Penrose and Geisler, as well as theorists such as Nancy Sommers, David Bartholomae, Anthony Petrosky and others, believe a solution to the problem of students writing with authority is to have students write about subjects in which they are already an expert. They suggest teachers “distribute authority more evenly in the classroom by having students decide on the topics to be explored” (Penrose and Geisler 517). This is problematic because Penrose and Geisler’s findings, as well as what I see at work in JSNAG, are consistent with student adherence to the information transfer model of education. These student writers do not see knowledge as constructed and do not differentiate or distinguish between fact, opinion, and knowledge claim. Rather, they largely rely on finding and reporting facts. Even when participating in discourse in a non-academic sphere about a subject in which they have considerable expertise and knowledge on many levels and in which they have successfully demonstrated their authority, they are still unable to write from a position of authority because their fundamental view of what knowledge is and how it is created is based on years of personal experience in a typical school setting where the teacher transfers knowledge in the form of facts to the students. This view of knowledge is often reinforced through methods of evaluation in which students are required to merely regurgitate information presented by the teacher or in “the book”. Consequently, even when students are participants and not outsiders in the creation of a discourse, finding truth is the goal as opposed to making knowledge claims. If students can learn to see knowledge as constructed and not a set of facts, I believe they will take hold of that elusive ownership of their papers.
Ultimately, what does this mean for teachers and what is the practical solution to this problem of authority? At the beginning of this research process I hypothesized and was quite certain I would find that asking students to write about subjects they are already interested in or experts on (such as a favorite hobby, sport, book, film, or band) would enable students to write from a position of authority because they would already possess knowledge and authority within the discourse community equivalent to that of a scholar in an academic context, leveling the playing field so to speak and thus making a difficult task far more manageable. However, such does not seem to be the case. Asking students to write about such subjects may make the assignment more enjoyable for students to write and more interesting for teachers to read, but as far as writing with authority is concerned, students need to be broken of the information transfer model of education before they can make, defend and test knowledge claims in any conversation within a discourse community, be it academic or no. So in truth, student inability to write from a position of authority is actually a symptom of the information transfer model of education. If students can learn to view knowledge as constructed, the four premises Penrose and Geisler detail will become clearer and students will be more likely to position themselves as fellow knowledge constructors in their papers. Without altering this fundamental view of learning and knowledge, all the Relient K authority in bandom will not help a JSNAGer write a better piece of academic discourse.
Works Cited
Geisler, Cheryl and Penrose, Ann M. “Reading and Writing without Authority.” College Composition and Communication 45:4 (Dec. 1994) 505-520.
Jon Schneck Needs A Group (JSNAG). Mod. Chris Tucker. July 2006. Nov. 28, 2007. .
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Discourse Communities. Local and Global.” Rhetoric Review 11:1 (1992): 110-122.
Kirsch, Gesa E. and Mortensen, Peter. “On Authority in the Study of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 44:4 (Dec. 1993) 556-572.
Rindere, Regina C. “A Comment on ‘Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer’.” College English 43:1 (Jan. 1981) 86-87).
Sommers, Nancy. “Between the Drafts.” College Composition and Communication 43:1 (Feb. 1992) 23-31.
I know I haven't blogged here. Sorry, I blog at aprilkummrow.blogspot.com now Go visit if you want and you can see where my crazy life is going. Anyway-- so here's just some piece of academic discourse for Chris.
April Kummrow
Research Paper
Understanding Writing 12/4/07
Student Authority in Academic Discourse
You don’t have to look very far to find criticism of student writing. There is no shortage of writing teachers, tutors, and composition studies scholars who will tell you the many problems they see cropping up time and time again in student papers. There is also no lack of discussion on various theoretical concepts derived from analysis of these recurring problems. There is a definite lack of solutions writing teachers can practically implement to produce better writers as well as better writing. The nature of these student writing problems ranges from sentence level grammatical errors to higher order conceptual issues. In a review of Andrea Lunsford’s “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer”, Regina Rinderer mentions in passing that “there usually is something missing in the way of assertiveness and ‘ownership of the paper’ with developmental writers” (86). This “something missing” is by no means limited to “developmental writers” as many students at all levels seem to suffer from an inability to write from a position of authority or to claim authority over their own texts. This issue is often included in scholars’ lists of student writing problems, although composition studies scholars seem far more interested in negotiations of authority in the classroom and authority of the teacher as established in teacher comments on student writing. Students know how to claim authority as they do so on a daily basis in their social interactions and non academic discourse communities, often without realizing it. The somewhat neglected and overlooked problem of students writing without authority is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. Composition studies scholars have argued that a solution to the authority problem is to have students write about subjects in which they are already authorities because they will transfer that authority to their academic writing. However, through my research I have found that this is not the case because of student adherence to the information transfer model of education in how they view facts, opinions, and knowledge claims and their authority to make those claims be it in an academic context or not.
It should come as no surprise that student writers have difficulty in writing from a position of authority when participating in academic discourse. As students, it could be argued that they have no authority. Students are not as knowledgeable as the experts they are critiquing. Where professionals and scholars have months and years to research a single topic, students have mere weeks and this is stacked on top of other classes, part time jobs, and social demands on student time. Scholars already have a knowledge base and background with the subject in question whereas students usually need to develop that base before they can understand the research they are doing. The experts in a field have proof of authority in the form of a PhD attached to their name whereas students have yet to earn a degree. Professionals also have an advantage over students because of their familiarity with academic writing. Scholars have written more, they know the conventions of academic discourse, and they have practice in being an authority whereas students are in the process of learning those conventions. Student writers are very aware of their own limitations in these respects and are consequently hesitant to claim authority in their writing. It is daunting to be asked to evaluate, critique, or expand upon the work of an expert when you are a mere undergraduate or high school student. Students still make an attempt at claiming authority, though their misguided efforts often result in a reliance on “reproducing acceptable truths” and “imitating the gestures and rituals of the academy” while “not having confidence enough in [their] own ideas” (Sommers 28).
One of the social demands on student time is the participation in discourse communities. With the rise of social networking websites such as Facebook and Myspace, students have growing access to online communities for those who share their interests in anything from music and movies to extra curricular activities to oddities such as the shared frustration of groups like “My Last Name Is Always Mispronounced” (there are over 50 Facebook groups dedicated to this topic alone). These groups may be nonacademic, but they are indeed discourse communities. The phenomena of “the discourse community” is defined in many different ways by different scholars but for the type of interaction I am referring to, a discourse community can be defined as “a concept of the author and audience as participants in a communication system of interconnected and interrelated individuals” or “a loose confederation of like-minded individuals” (Killingsworth 110, 112). Our academically centered minds may have difficulty seeing a Myspace group as part of a discourse community, but to explore my classification of an online forum this way, let us examine one group in particular as a case study. We will explore something I have a personal stake in, (a group I am a part of) the Relient K discourse community.
Relient K is a band from Canton, Ohio and I have been a fan of this band for the last seven years. As of the last two to three years, with the advent of Myspace especially, my Relient K discourse community has emerged and grown. Relient K fans of all ages have been contributing to the “RK” discussion just as scholars and academics contribute to the ongoing conversations about their fields and particular subjects in their area of study. Academic discourse is conducted through the publication of books, papers and articles in journals and online, through conferences and conventions where papers are presented and debates or discussions are held, and through direct contact and collaboration of scholars. There are many avenues of conducting discourse within the Relient K discourse community, (blogs, chats, fan websites, etc.) but for the purposes of this paper, I will primarily focus on one channel of communication, a Relient K focused Myspace Group called “Jon Schneck Needs A Group” or, “JSNAG”. As of December 3, 2007 there were 107 members in the group at varying levels of participation, including both male and female participants (largely female) of an average age ranging from 15-19. JSNAG was founded July 18, 2006 by 16 year old Chris Tucker from Missouri. Chris is the moderator of JSNAG and he created Jon Schneck Needs A Group because he decided he wanted to be a part of a Myspace group dedicated to each member of the band and Jon Schneck (guitarist for Relient K) didn’t have one. Group members can post topics creating a topic thread other group members can respond to in order to carry on conversation.
JSNAG’s regular posters have formed a unique community and have begun to carry on the conversation outside JSNAG posts. Group members regularly view and comment on each other’s Myspace and Facebook profiles and photo albums, read one another’s blog posts and Myspace bulletins, and some members post in other groups and in forums on the band’s official website and street team website. JSNAGers have also started to talk to one another via instant messages on AIM (AOL Instant Messenger), text messages, and phone calls. This strengthening of the community has allowed JSNAGers to view each other and what the others have to say about Relient K in different avenues. It is through the compilation of these sources, the collective contribution any particular member has made to the RK discussion that authority is gained and not through any one particular act or post.
There are several ways members have demonstrated their RK authority or their right to speak and be heard in this discourse community. JSNAGers must first establish their fan level. There is a scale of fandom which is not Relient K specific but I will use Relient K fans as examples. At the bottom of the barrel is the Casual fan, the person who recognizes and enjoys the music but attends shows seldom and irregularly. They may own at least one CD but don’t know all the words, cannot name all band members, and they are probably not familiar with the band’s older music, if they are even aware that there is older music, as casual fans often say things such as, “yeah I have Relient K’s cds, . . . both of them” (though the band has five LPs, five EPs, two Christmas CDs, a very rare demo CD and has contributed songs to several compilation albums). Then in the middle of the spectrum lives the Teeny Bopper which is typically a thirteen to sixteen year old female who is convinced she will one day marry the lead singer, Matthew Thiessen. These girls can be quite fanatic about the band (or at least about Matt) as they frequently check Relient K’s website and read Matt Thiessen’s blog. Such fans are often very active in online forums, fan sites and Myspace groups. These girls go to shows when they can get their parents to take them, often bearing small gifts for the band in the form of letters and cards, stuffed animals, completely random objects (guitarist Jon Schneck was recently given a razor and a note asking him to shave), and any assortment of cookies or candy (Skittles and Combos have been a fan staple since Relient K included a hidden track about their love of those snacks on their second LP). The best way to identify a Teeny Bopper is to look for a homemade t-shirt quoting song lyrics, proposing to Matt, or simply declaring “I ♥ RK”. At the top of the heap is the Old School/Hardcore fan. Relient K has probably been their favorite band for years and they know more facts about the band as a whole and as individual members, their conversations about the band are often more critical and evaluative than that of fans lower on the scale, they attend more shows than less devoted fans, and they have often met the band, or at least one band member. It is likely that some JSNAG members are Casual fans but active participants tend to be somewhere between Teeny Boppers and Old School/Hardcore fans. JSNAGers reveal where they are on the fan continuum throughout their postings and contributions to group discussion. Occasionally group members will gain authority by mentioning how many concerts they’ve attended, how many times they’ve met certain band members, post pictures they’ve taken with the band, or announce when a band member has responded to their e-mail or Myspace comment.
Authority isn’t only gained through expression of personal experience, however. Just as scholars discover new information or theories in their subject area and write and publish papers to reveal this information to their colleagues, JSNAGers discover new information or theories about Relient K and reveal it to their fellow fans via their topic posts. This is a successful means to gain authority as it both proves the fan has the general knowledge base, thus reinforcing their fan status, and it is evidence of their familiarity with the Relient K cannon of information; they demonstrate the ability to determine what is new and therefore of value to fellow fans. These posts are often reposted information JSNAGers have found elsewhere online such as new tour dates, new band blogs, tour journals or podcasts, new pictures or album art, links to new, rare, or side-project Relient K songs or videos, or postings about major events, such as when Relient K’s tour bus caught fire in July of 2007. These posts are linked in that they often contain information devoted Relient K fans would find out eventually, the poster is simply the one who found it first. JSNAGers seem to have an ongoing and unspoken challenge to see who can find the most and rarest information first. When a member posts something that is already known by some if not all members, others will continue the conversation but are sure to state they already knew this information and may claim another member told them already or they found it for themselves. Such was the case when moderator, Chris, posted that it was rumored Jon Schneck’s wife was pregnant which other members already suspected from reading Jon’s sister’s blog and his wife’s Myspace comments. Jon still hasn’t made an announcement on his blog, the definitive source for Jon Schneck info, so the topic is still under scrutiny. (She is due in February, but I know this because Jon told me himself and I have chosen not to reveal that to the community without his approval.) This isn’t the first time I have withheld information from the community either; in November of 2007 bassist John Warne gave my roommate and I a sneak peak at two yet to be released Woodland Forest episodes after a show in Moline, Illinois, and he expressly instructed us to reveal nothing about the episodes other than the fact that they would be released soon. (Woodland Forest is a flash cartoon animated entirely by John Warne which takes place in a fictional forest inhabited with talking trees and animals as well as cartoon versions of the band members.)
Mortensen and Kirsch claim that “authority remains for many a simple matter of common sense” (556). In my analysis of the rhetorical strategies used by JSNAG members to gain authority this seems to be true. Through a pre-concert conversation with some JSNAG members, I found they were unable to identify how someone “shows they are a good fan” (the strategies used to demonstrate authority as a Relient K fan) yet they were able to clearly rank which types of fans in general and JSNAG group members in particular were “better” than others. These value judgments do not stem from which group members are more popular, but which group members most effectively demonstrate their knowledge, experience, and value as a JSNAGer, and more importantly, as a Relient K fan.
Penrose and Geisler’s article “Reading and Writing Without Authority” sheds light on why knowledgeable students (such as JSNAG Relient K fans) have difficulty writing with authority. In this article, Penrose and Geisler come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference between a student writer and an experienced scholar’s view of knowledge. From this difference, they “articulate four epistemological premises which seem part of Rodger’s [a scholar] worldview but not Janet’s [a student]” (Penrose and Geisler 507). These premises are: texts are authored, authors present knowledge in the form of claims, knowledge claims can conflict, and knowledge claims can be tested. I will digress for a moment to address the first premise that texts are authored. Of course texts are authored. This paper didn’t just appear on my kitchen table double spaced, Times New Roman font size 12 with my name on top, and would you look at that, there’s a bibliography too! I realize Penrose and Geisler aren’t suggesting students think writing just appears, but still, I think we can trust students enough to believe they have some sense that there is an author behind the various texts they read. However, I believe the other three epistemological premises Penrose and Geisler construct are congruent with my findings.
Repeatedly, the researchers found that Janet failed to acknowledge authorship of the articles she read, though I would argue this is a direct result of her failure to grasp the premises that authors present knowledge in the form of claims, knowledge claims and conflict and knowledge claims can be tested. Without an understanding of those three premises, the authorship of a text is irrelevant because a student will view a group of texts, like Janet does, as being a “single definitive source rather than as a set of multiple voices in conversation” (Penrose and Geisler 509). A suggestion I have for this problem is to encourage or even require students to actively read and to attribute each major point directly to the author, by name, on a separate sheet of paper and to refer to this when writing their own papers. Unfortunately, while this may enforce the importance of the author, it may also case students to heavily rely on quoting experts rather than use what scholars have to say to define their own position. (My solution may be of some benefit, but it still does not address the larger problems.) Failure to insert the self into the conversation is definitely evident in Janet’s writing. She does not form her own unique, defendable stance on the issues she writes about. Rather, she presents what she sees as the factual truth sifted out of each article.
What bears the greatest connection to JSNAGers is that Janet focused on fact finding and failed to distinguish between factual information, opinion, and knowledge claims. As definitions of these terms vary from scholar to scholar, allow me to give you the definitions from which I am working. A fact is a verifiable truth or evidence which can be proven. An opinion is a personal view held on a particular issue. A knowledge claim is an attempt to justify and legitimate an opinion through the presentation and interpretation of facts. The important distinction to note is that facts reveal no personal preference or taste, opinions are entirely a matter of personal belief, and a knowledge claim is an argumentative means to persuade others that one’s opinion is correct, valuable or even merely valid. Like Janet, JSNAGers tend to report facts. Most topic posts, especially posts declaring new information, are factual truths which can be verified. Such posts are new tour dates, when a new album or video will be released, who Jon Schneck’s favorite superhero is (it’s Superman) or how the latest Woodland Forest episode concludes (a cartoon version of the drummer explodes).
JSNAGers do post opinions as well, often in response to topics such as “What’s your least favorite RK song?”, “What do you think is good fan etiquette?”, “Who would win in a fight to the death, Matt Thiessen or Chuck Norris?” While the first example of song preference is truly a matter of personal taste, the other examples are situations where JSNAGers have the opportunity to use their authority and knowledge to make and defend new knowledge claims though they seldom do so. The post asking group members to define good fan etiquette evoked responses such as “I hate when people budge in line” and “I hate it when people talk and make rude comments during slow/acoustic songs, yelling as if the music is still blaring” (JSNAG). The hypothetical situation of a death match between Thiessen and Norris also reaped responses posing theories of the outcome which relied on personal opinion, though the responses became a narration which collectively grew. Here is an partial transcript of that topic post.
“KELLY- well, to start out, Matt comes up with a song on the spot about it.......... cause he likes to do that..........ya....... . . .
CHRIS- yes! definitely. that would happen.
(the song begins)
"I was walking down the street one sunny afternoon
talking to a friend of mine
when chuck norris jumped out from the bushes and said
I don't like your kind!"
ELAINA- then matty t will find that chuck norris has is has a feeble mind so then matt thiessen will kick his behind and he will wast no time because he is matty t and he worships the animal known as the wallabee.
CHRIS- "I was walking down the street one sunny afternoon
talking to a friend of mine
when chuck norris jumped out from the bushes and said
I don't like your kind!
Well, Chuck, he has a feeble mind,
So I had to kick his behind (wasting no time),
because I am Matt T,
agile like the wallabee."
yes.
KELLY-heck yes
and Matt T. making up a song on the spot would then distract Chuck with that
and then all of a sudden he'd be like "WAAAH!!!!" (ninja sounding)
ANDY- ... the real question is sense they are both great would the world end if either one lost?
they might be locked in battle for so long that we wont get another CD, it would be bad
...
APRIL- see, I think they would end up in a battle in which it appears neither will win-
Matt may distract Chuck with his sing-song voice, but then Chuck roundhouse kicks Matt upside the head, knocking him a bit out of it -- ending his songs.
So while they're both trapped in an even match, Matt puts the side of his hand up to his mouth and calls out, "I'm begging you to be my escape!"
His words echo out across all of America in a pitch only the other members of Relient K are trained to hear.
Within moments, Jon Schneck, Matt Hoopes, and Dave Douglass leap out of the bushes to Matt's rescue. (John Warne will be a little late because he lives further away.)”
(from here the story only continues to grow more and more elaborate)
Collective narration aside, JSNAGers are unable to truly test their posts as knowledge claims because they heavily rely on both facts and opinions which are undisputable in their eyes; facts because they are verifiable truth and opinions because, though one may not agree with another about a topic, we have all been taught that everyone is entitled to their opinion after all. Perhaps JSNAGers are taking Relient K’s words in one of their songs to heart, “opinions are immunity to being told you’re wrong.”
Penrose and Geisler, as well as theorists such as Nancy Sommers, David Bartholomae, Anthony Petrosky and others, believe a solution to the problem of students writing with authority is to have students write about subjects in which they are already an expert. They suggest teachers “distribute authority more evenly in the classroom by having students decide on the topics to be explored” (Penrose and Geisler 517). This is problematic because Penrose and Geisler’s findings, as well as what I see at work in JSNAG, are consistent with student adherence to the information transfer model of education. These student writers do not see knowledge as constructed and do not differentiate or distinguish between fact, opinion, and knowledge claim. Rather, they largely rely on finding and reporting facts. Even when participating in discourse in a non-academic sphere about a subject in which they have considerable expertise and knowledge on many levels and in which they have successfully demonstrated their authority, they are still unable to write from a position of authority because their fundamental view of what knowledge is and how it is created is based on years of personal experience in a typical school setting where the teacher transfers knowledge in the form of facts to the students. This view of knowledge is often reinforced through methods of evaluation in which students are required to merely regurgitate information presented by the teacher or in “the book”. Consequently, even when students are participants and not outsiders in the creation of a discourse, finding truth is the goal as opposed to making knowledge claims. If students can learn to see knowledge as constructed and not a set of facts, I believe they will take hold of that elusive ownership of their papers.
Ultimately, what does this mean for teachers and what is the practical solution to this problem of authority? At the beginning of this research process I hypothesized and was quite certain I would find that asking students to write about subjects they are already interested in or experts on (such as a favorite hobby, sport, book, film, or band) would enable students to write from a position of authority because they would already possess knowledge and authority within the discourse community equivalent to that of a scholar in an academic context, leveling the playing field so to speak and thus making a difficult task far more manageable. However, such does not seem to be the case. Asking students to write about such subjects may make the assignment more enjoyable for students to write and more interesting for teachers to read, but as far as writing with authority is concerned, students need to be broken of the information transfer model of education before they can make, defend and test knowledge claims in any conversation within a discourse community, be it academic or no. So in truth, student inability to write from a position of authority is actually a symptom of the information transfer model of education. If students can learn to view knowledge as constructed, the four premises Penrose and Geisler detail will become clearer and students will be more likely to position themselves as fellow knowledge constructors in their papers. Without altering this fundamental view of learning and knowledge, all the Relient K authority in bandom will not help a JSNAGer write a better piece of academic discourse.
Works Cited
Geisler, Cheryl and Penrose, Ann M. “Reading and Writing without Authority.” College Composition and Communication 45:4 (Dec. 1994) 505-520.
Jon Schneck Needs A Group (JSNAG). Mod. Chris Tucker. July 2006. Nov. 28, 2007. .
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Discourse Communities. Local and Global.” Rhetoric Review 11:1 (1992): 110-122.
Kirsch, Gesa E. and Mortensen, Peter. “On Authority in the Study of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 44:4 (Dec. 1993) 556-572.
Rindere, Regina C. “A Comment on ‘Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer’.” College English 43:1 (Jan. 1981) 86-87).
Sommers, Nancy. “Between the Drafts.” College Composition and Communication 43:1 (Feb. 1992) 23-31.