• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Seminar in Theory Research and Practice of Composition

English 506 Theory, Research, and Practice of Composition

University of Idaho (Spring 2000). Instructor: Jennie Nelson

English 506 examines how theory, research, and practice have evolved in composition studies. In particular, we will focus on the ways in which teaching practices presuppose and reflect theoretical positions.

Requirements and Grading

Class Participation (worth 15 %) - includes regular contributions to in-class discussion; bluebook entries; student discussion day.

      with you?

Theory/Teaching Connections (worth 20%): This series of four short papers asks you to apply the theories we examine this term to pedagogical circumstances. They are designed to get you thinking about how what you’ve been studying applies to what you (would) do in the classroom. Each of these papers should be approximately 2–3 pages long. (See attached sheets.)

Literature Review (worth 40%): This 15–20 page project is designed to allow you to explore the literature on a topic of interest in the field of composition studies. (See attached sheets for more detailed information.)

Final Exam (worth 25%): this will be an open-book exam to be written in-class; you will receive the questions at least one week before the scheduled exam time.

Theory/Teaching Connections

This series of short papers asks you to apply the theories we have been examining this term to pedagogical circumstances, real or imagined. They are designed to get you thinking about how what you’ve been studying applies to what you (would) do in the classroom. Not everyone is teaching yet, so at some level, these connection pieces are necessarily tentative. Don’t worry about being “right”; think instead about how you understand the relationship between theory and pedagogy. You might want to revisit the essays we read at the beginning of the term, particularly the piece by Charles Schuster, as a way to start thinking about these connections. The overarching goal for all of these assignments is critical reflection. In other words, you should be thinking critically about the ways in which practices presuppose and reflect theoretical positions, and vice versa, and how those interrelationships (would) appear in your own teaching.

Each of these papers should be approximately 2–3 pages long. The two “Statement” assignments, in particular, could serve as starting points for developing a formal teaching portfolio: a collection of documents, often used in academic job searching, that describes your teaching to those outside of your classroom or program. If you are currently teaching, you should feel free to use examples from your experience where appropriate. If you are not, you may prefer to talk in ideal terms and then critically reflect on those ideals.

If you are currently a TA at UI (or hope to be one next Fall), you should use first-year composition as the context for these assignments. If you are not part of the TA program, you may choose to use your anticipated teaching context or first-year composition.

These assignments are due on the following dates:

Textbook Analysis: This assignment asks you to analyze a current composition textbook in terms of the theoretical principles it reflects. Often, you will find an explicit theoretical discussion in the teacher’s edition or in the introduction for teachers. As you look through the text, pay particular attention to these sections, as well as to any prefaces or other introductions, including overviews of chapters and units. Do not, however, simply take the authors’ word; compare what the authors say with what appears in the rest of the text, using your knowledge of composition theory as a guide.

If you are currently a TA (or plan to apply for a TAship), choose one of the following texts:

Copies of these texts are available from current TA’s or can be borrowed from me. If you plan to teach in another context, you should choose a current text from that course.

This assignment is not specifically an evaluation, though you should feel free to discuss places where you see the text doing better and worse jobs of enacting the principles the authors claim as primary. Your main goal here is to describe the links you see between the theoretical principles that guide the book and the advice, directives, exercises, assignments, etc. which appear in the body of the text. The two most important questions that should guide your analysis are 1) what theoretical principles guide the text? 2) How are these principles enacted throughout?

Assignment and Rationale: This essay has two parts. You will need to design a writing assignment and analyze that assignment in terms of the theoretical rationale behind it.

The assignment you design need not fit into the specific curriculum here, and you may feel free to use assignments you have already designed. However, if you are teaching or plan to teach in UI’s program, your assignment should be designed for a first-year composition course (again, it need not meet the specific requirements at UI).

You will need to explain the context in which the assignment is given. This includes not only the level of student for whom it is designed, but also where this assignment would fit in a sequence of assignments and the related activities students would do. I realize that we have not talked at all about sequencing, but I want you to start thinking about writing assignments as a progression during a course (if you haven’t already!).

Your rationale should explain the theoretical basis for the assignment you develop. That is, you should analyze your assignment in terms of the model(s) and principle(s) of writing you believe are key to your practice in this particular case.

Statement of Teaching Philosophy: This essay should explore your assumptions and beliefs about teaching in general and teaching writing in particular. Think about how your approaches to students, assignments, classroom activities, etc. reflect these assumptions about teaching and learning to write. What do you believe about writing and learning to write? How do you (plan to) translate these beliefs into teaching practices?

Statement of Assessment Philosophy: This assignment is similar to the one above in that you are being asked to explain your assumptions and beliefs, in this case, about the evaluation of student work in particular. This essay asks you to think about how evaluation can be integrated into teaching practice in productive ways. Your discussion should focus on classroom grading, not large-scale assessment. The goal is to explain your understanding and beliefs regarding the uses, values, and practices of grading individual student work.

It may be useful to review your Statement of Teaching Philosophy as you work on this essay. Try thinking about what assessment practices would be consistent with the theoretical models you value in your teaching in general. This assignment is not asking you to identify A’s, B’s, C’s, but rather it is asking you to think about the relationship between the theory reflected in your teaching and the theory reflected in your evaluative practices. (See materials by Richard Straub on reserve in the library for help in discussing the variety of evaluative practices teachers may use.)

Syllabus 506

Schedule of Reading Assignments (assignments are listed on the days they are due):

Mon. 1/10 - Introduction to the course

Wed. 1/12 - Foundations - what theoretical frameworks have shaped work in composition? James Berlin (1987) “An Overview” (from Rhetoric and Reality). Lester Faigley (1986) “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.”

Mon. 1/17 - No Class- Martin Luther King Day - Read Chris Haas (1990? ) “Learning to Read Biology: A Case Study of Eliza” (note how theory informs her interpretations of Liza’s growth as a reader across 4 years of undergraduate study)

Wed. 1/19 - Theory Issues: Why are some members of the field suspicious of theory and its relationship to practice? Sidney Dobrin (1997) “Composition and the Politics of Theory Building.” Charles Schuster (1991) “Theory and Practice”

Mon. 1/24 - Process and Change - How has the “Process Movement” changed the field of writing instruction? Maxine Hairston (1982) “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” Erika Lindemann (1995) “What Does the Process Involve?”

Wed. 1/26 - Research Issues - Why is the role of empirical research in composition studies so contested? Lillian Bridwell-Bowles (1991) “Research in Composition: Issues and Methods.” Janet Emig (1983) “Inquiry Paradigms and Writing.”

Mon.1/31 - Cognitive Models I Linda Flower and John R. Hayes (1981) “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” Linda Flower and John R. Hayes (1980) “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem.”

Wed. 2/2 - Cognitive Models II Mike Rose (1980). “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans and the Stifling of Language: A Cognitivist Analysis of Writer’s Block.” Nancy Sommers (1980) “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.”

Mon. 2/7 - Expressivist Models Donald Murray (1982) Selections from Learning By Teaching. Peter Elbow (1973) Selections from Writing Without Teachers.

Wed. 2/9 - Constructivist Models I Kenneth Bruffee (1986) “Social Construction, Language, and the Authority of Knowledge: A Bibliographic Essay.” David Bartholomae (1985) “Inventing the University.”

Mon. 2/14 - Constructivist Models II Kenneth Bruffee (1984) “Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind.” Joseph Harris (1986) “Community in the Study of Writing.”

Wed. 2/16 - Postmodernism and Composition I (3 articles for today) Lester Faigley (1992) “Introduction,” Fragments of Rationality. John Schilb (1991) “Cultural Studies, Postmodernism, and Composition.” -Postmodernism and Composition II Victor Vitanza (1991) “Three Countertheses; or A Critical In(ter)vention into Composition Theories and Pedagogies.”[a tough read!]

Mon. 2/21 NO Class - President’s Day

Wed. 2/23 - Neo-Marxism I James Berlin (1988) “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” Patricia Bizzell (1991) “Marxist Ideas in Composition Studies.”

Mon. 2/28 - Neo-Marxism II John Clifford (1991) “The Subject in Discourse” Maxine Hairston (1992) “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing.”

Wed. 3/1 - Objectivity, Empiricism and Postmodernism in Research Davida Charney (1996) “Empiricism is Not a Four-Letter Word.” Elizabeth Flynn (1997) “On Objectivity in Qualitative Research. Interchanges on Objectivity in Qualitative Research” (1997); Marilyn Cooper and Davida Charney.

Mon. 3/6 - Politics and the Profession James Slevin (1991) “Depoliticizing and Politicizing Composition Studies.” Robert J. Connors (1991) “Rhetoric in the Modern University: The Creation of an Underclass.”

Wed. 3/8 - Getting Polemical Sharon Crowley (1998) “Around 1971: The Emergence of Process Pedagogy.” Sharon Crowley (1998) “A Personal Essay on Freshman Composition.”

Mon. 3–13 No Class to 3/17 Spring Break

Renee and Simone, For the rest of the term, students are taking over in selecting readings on issues they have chosen from the list below and are preparing class discussion activities; one thought I had was to actually ask some of my graduate students to write introductions to their articles and topics and to offer postreading insights from themselves and classmates. The topics students chose this term are quite important to the field and their choices clearly reflect what they, as new comp. teachers, want to know more about. I have highlighted the topics they have chosen to investigate.

Purpose and Genre: This project is designed to allow you to explore the literature on a topic of interest in the field of composition studies. The goal of a literature review (also known as a “research review”) is to identify the major views or issues that characterize the field’s discussion of a particular topic—that is, to map out an area of the field. Literature reviews are frequently embedded in other academic genres: most scholarly arguments begin with a literature review that establishes the framework for a new position to be argued; empirical research reports always begin by reviewing prior research in order to show how the current study extends or responds to the work that others have done. But the literature review is also a genre in its own right. Journals often publish articles whose primary goal is to review the available literature on a current topic. Review articles serve to define and focus an issue by providing an overview and interpretation of the professional discussion that is taking place. They are typically aimed at a journal’s broadest readership and may have a substantial influence on how these readers perceive the nature and implications of recent developments in the field; consequently, a review may significantly influence teaching practices, the development of theory, and the direction of subsequent research.

To create such an interpretive overview, you will need to notice the issues that unite or divide the literature in question. For example, some professional discussions may best be described by focusing on common interests or themes across articles or authors. Other bodies of literature are more clearly characterized by differences in focus or by points of disagreement. In some cases, you’ll find that the discussion on your topic is easily categorized into clearly defined positions or focuses or concerns. Describe what these concerns are and examine how they relate to one another. If you notice inconsistencies or disagreements in the literature on your topic, look carefully at the focus of those articles. Are there chronological trends—changes in the field’s thinking or practice over time? In that case, you’ll want to trace those changes in your review and try to discern why the focus has shifted. Or you may find that the authors disagree because they are talking about different specialized domains, different writing contexts, or different age groups.

The point of the literature review is to highlight these trends, using individual studies and arguments to illustrate the defining features you have identified. Notice that this is very different from providing a series of article summaries. The best reviews demonstrate independent, creative thinking and analysis, in addition to wide and careful reading.

Below is a list of possible topic/issues for your review; you may also choose a topic not on this list, as long as you get prior approval from me. I am asking that no two students choose the same focus area, and hope that we can work together so that everyone gets a topic that they are interested in.

The best place to start reading is with the most recent journal articles—to get a sense of the current conversation on your topic. Who is doing the talking? What are they talking about? These initial readings will point you toward other relevant sources. Again, your task is not to summarize individual articles but to interpret and structure the larger (multi-article) discussion for your reader by identifying and describing trends, issues, methods, debates, and other types of subdivisions within your topic. Aim to include 10–20 texts in your review. NOTE: you will select two of these texts for your topic to assign to the class for the day you lead class discussion.

For this project, you will need to choose two readings you consider essential to helping the class understand your issue. You will need to give me two copies of your readings at least one week before your class session. In choosing your readings, you might consider selecting an introductory or overview piece and a more advanced discussion. Or you might choose two that reflect differing views on the issue. Or you might choose a historically significant piece and one that reflects current thinking.

Prior to your assigned day, you should prepare discussion questions and a brief activity or lecture to introduce your issue. You will be responsible for leading discussion and for getting the class actively involved in exploring your topic.