SRR Submit: Post-process, Globalization, etc.
Originally Submitted April 11, 2011: This SRR on the readings for this date represents my thinking on readings towards the end of the course.
The question for discussion this week asks which of these readings I would consider the most important in designing my own graduate level composition theory course. The answer is complicated by the fact that the readings for this week address a wide variety of topics that would be important to such a course. If I had to cite a unifying factor, they all seem to propose future directions for composition, either in terms of pedagogy or research. It seems, then, that my answer to this question also indicates what I believe the future of the field/discipline will or should be. Of the six readings, I feel that I could make strong arguments for the central importance of three; Downs and Wardle, Canagarajah, and Durst.
Downs and Wardle propose a radical re-imagining of the purposes and pedagogy of First Year Composition. They argue that FYC as it is currently taught in many institutions contradicts what Composition research over the past several decades has demonstrated about the nature of writing, and that it should be taught as an introduction to writing studies. They propose two major advantages to such a pedagogy. First, it would help students to think about writing in a different way that would better prepare them to address different writing contexts. Second, it would advance composition as an academic discipline concerned with important content, which they contrast with the common public and administration perception of writing and FYC as a “tools course.” I would argue for the importance of this piece because it addresses the frequently ignored contradictions between actual FYC pedagogy and composition theory. Downs and Wardle not only identify this as a theoretical problem but also consider the concrete implications for the field/discipline and common university labor practices. As such, this piece would encourage graduate students just entering the field to see the connections between theory and practice, as well as giving them a feeling for the current academic climate.
Canagarajah addresses the issue of World Englishes (WE) and globalization. He argues for a practice of “code meshing” as a way of contesting monolinguistic practices that privilege Metropolitan Englishes (ME) in formal, academic discourse. He points out that, although current pedagogical theory claims to be inclusive, non-standard English is typically relegated to certain spheres, and standardized forms are preferred for formal and final writing products. He emphasizes that WE users outnumber ME users considerably, and will continue to do so. He also shows how increasing globalization as a result of mass media and other communication mean that multilingual practices are or will soon be important for users of privileged dialects as well as those whose dialects are not privileged. This piece is important because it proposes a potential answer for compositionists who may want to incorporate non-standard and World Englishes into their pedagogy, but don’t know how, concretely, they might accomplish that. It also situates writing pedagogy in the U.S. in a global context that accounts for the increasingly global writing and communication contexts in which students are likely to find themselves in the future.
Durst offers a history of the major work in composition studies over the past few decades. He does not proceed purely chronologically, but instead chooses to break down work in the field into many categories and sub-categories. Although his conclusions about the current and future status of research in the field could certainly be contested, I believe his history provides a useful overview of the recent major developments in the field. As is apparent from our course, it is impossible to read everything that might be considered important or foundational for composition studies in a single semester. Durst’s piece is important because it offers a broad overview of major work in a range of interest areas. Such a history gives the student just being introduced to the field a place to start in pursuing specific research interests in a more comprehensive manner.
Clearly all three pieces address the future of composition differently. I would be tempted to say that Canagarajah’s piece was the most important, except that I feel his idea is still very much in its infancy in this piece. The idea is good, but the proposed implementation seems problematic, and I’m not sure it would truly do the work of resistance that he claims. Similarly, Downs and Wardle propose a dynamic new direction for the field, and I’m intrigued by their claim that teaching writing as the content area of FYC would help writers more than the current model, yet implementation of this strategy would require a radical change in labor structure in writing programs (which they acknowledge). I have to conclude that Durst would be the most important for an introductory graduate course because, while I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions, the bulk of the piece provides students with avenues for continued study and research in many different directions, opening up possibilities for the field/discipline.
The question for discussion this week asks which of these readings I would consider the most important in designing my own graduate level composition theory course. The answer is complicated by the fact that the readings for this week address a wide variety of topics that would be important to such a course. If I had to cite a unifying factor, they all seem to propose future directions for composition, either in terms of pedagogy or research. It seems, then, that my answer to this question also indicates what I believe the future of the field/discipline will or should be. Of the six readings, I feel that I could make strong arguments for the central importance of three; Downs and Wardle, Canagarajah, and Durst.
Downs and Wardle propose a radical re-imagining of the purposes and pedagogy of First Year Composition. They argue that FYC as it is currently taught in many institutions contradicts what Composition research over the past several decades has demonstrated about the nature of writing, and that it should be taught as an introduction to writing studies. They propose two major advantages to such a pedagogy. First, it would help students to think about writing in a different way that would better prepare them to address different writing contexts. Second, it would advance composition as an academic discipline concerned with important content, which they contrast with the common public and administration perception of writing and FYC as a “tools course.” I would argue for the importance of this piece because it addresses the frequently ignored contradictions between actual FYC pedagogy and composition theory. Downs and Wardle not only identify this as a theoretical problem but also consider the concrete implications for the field/discipline and common university labor practices. As such, this piece would encourage graduate students just entering the field to see the connections between theory and practice, as well as giving them a feeling for the current academic climate.
Canagarajah addresses the issue of World Englishes (WE) and globalization. He argues for a practice of “code meshing” as a way of contesting monolinguistic practices that privilege Metropolitan Englishes (ME) in formal, academic discourse. He points out that, although current pedagogical theory claims to be inclusive, non-standard English is typically relegated to certain spheres, and standardized forms are preferred for formal and final writing products. He emphasizes that WE users outnumber ME users considerably, and will continue to do so. He also shows how increasing globalization as a result of mass media and other communication mean that multilingual practices are or will soon be important for users of privileged dialects as well as those whose dialects are not privileged. This piece is important because it proposes a potential answer for compositionists who may want to incorporate non-standard and World Englishes into their pedagogy, but don’t know how, concretely, they might accomplish that. It also situates writing pedagogy in the U.S. in a global context that accounts for the increasingly global writing and communication contexts in which students are likely to find themselves in the future.
Durst offers a history of the major work in composition studies over the past few decades. He does not proceed purely chronologically, but instead chooses to break down work in the field into many categories and sub-categories. Although his conclusions about the current and future status of research in the field could certainly be contested, I believe his history provides a useful overview of the recent major developments in the field. As is apparent from our course, it is impossible to read everything that might be considered important or foundational for composition studies in a single semester. Durst’s piece is important because it offers a broad overview of major work in a range of interest areas. Such a history gives the student just being introduced to the field a place to start in pursuing specific research interests in a more comprehensive manner.
Clearly all three pieces address the future of composition differently. I would be tempted to say that Canagarajah’s piece was the most important, except that I feel his idea is still very much in its infancy in this piece. The idea is good, but the proposed implementation seems problematic, and I’m not sure it would truly do the work of resistance that he claims. Similarly, Downs and Wardle propose a dynamic new direction for the field, and I’m intrigued by their claim that teaching writing as the content area of FYC would help writers more than the current model, yet implementation of this strategy would require a radical change in labor structure in writing programs (which they acknowledge). I have to conclude that Durst would be the most important for an introductory graduate course because, while I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions, the bulk of the piece provides students with avenues for continued study and research in many different directions, opening up possibilities for the field/discipline.