DOCSLIB.ORG

Multimodality and Composition Studies, 1960 - Present

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multimodality and Composition Studies, 1960 - Present MULTIMODALITY AND COMPOSITION STUDIES, 1960 - PRESENT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jason Palmeri, M.A. *********** The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Cynthia L. Selfe, Advisor Dr. Scott Lloyd DeWitt _______________________ Advisor Dr. Brenda Jo Brueggemann English Graduate Program Dr. Richard Selfe Copyright by Jason Palmeri 2007 ABSTRACT Challenging composition’s tendency to focus exclusively on alphabetic literacy, numerous composition scholars have called for a turn to teaching students to produce texts that explicitly blend words, images, and sounds. In calling for this multimodal turn, compositionists have argued that multimodal texts are becoming increasingly central in workplace and civic realms and that students are increasingly arriving in our classrooms with strong visual / multimodal literacies. In making these persuasive arguments for the need to move beyond alphabetic literacy in composition, scholars have understandably emphasized composition’s historical lack of engagement with visual and multimodal textual production. I contend, however that if we look closely at expressivist, cognitivist, and social composition theories of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, we can uncover a rich heritage of compositionists engaging issues of multimodality. In looking at the ways in which past composition theories engaged issues of multimodality, I ultimately seek to elucidate the unique disciplinary perspective that compositionists bring to multimodality as well as to articulate ways in which teaching multimodal composing can contribute to the development of students’ alphabetic writing skills. In the conclusion of the dissertation, I offer five macro-principles (culled from a blend of past expressivist, cognitive, and social approaches) that can productively inform our contemporary attempts to integrate multimodal composing into our courses, our ii curricular/institutional structures, and our scholarly work: 1) Alphabetic writing entails a profoundly multimodal process. 2) Some rhetorical and composing process theories can transfer across modalities. 3) Multimodal composing need not necessarily be digital. 4) Disability offers insights into multimodal composing pedagogy. 5) Analysis and production are interconnected activities. iii Dedicated to Kitty O. Locker iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Cynthia Selfe. Cindy has spent countless hours / days over the past few years talking with me about this project. Despite her very busy schedule, she has always welcomed me into her office whenever I needed--once again--to hash out dissertation ideas through oral conversation, demonstrating a great ability to adapt her advising to my own needs as a learner/writer. Throughout the process, Cindy has wonderfully blended critical questioning with patient encouragement, helping me improve my writing and thinking at every step of the way. I quite simply couldn’t have done it without her! I would like to thank Scott DeWitt for introducing me to digital multimodal composing, and providing me with a wonderful pedagogical model of the importance of embracing playfulness, experimentation, kindness, and patience in the digital multimodal classroom. It would not be an understatement to say that Scott is the person most responsible for my transformation from (semi)luddite to digital advocate. I would also like to thank Scott for inspiring me to reconsider the value of cognitive approaches. I would like to thank Brenda Brueggemann for introducing me to the field of disability studies in an interdisciplinary seminar that rocked my thinking more than any class I have ever taken. I also would like to thank Brenda for teaching me (way back in the 781 teacher training class) to embrace a pluralist vision of composition pedagogy, resisting the simplistic theoretical binaries that can push us to choose one pedagogical theory over another. v I would like to thank Dickie Selfe for the many thoughtful questions he has asked about my dissertation project—questions that pushed my thinking in new directions. I’d also like to think Dickie for teaching me much about the importance of putting the voices of students at the forefront of discussions of multimodal pedagogy (something I wish I had done more in this project!). I would also like to thank Beverly Moss—a mentor who was not officially on my dissertation committee. I learned much of what I know about composition theory and history from the classes I took with Beverly. I’d also like to thank Beverly for the invaluable support and encouragement she has offered throughout my graduate school experience (especially during the writing of my dissertation). My work in this dissertation has also been profoundly influenced by conversations with my fellow graduate school colleagues, especially the members of my writing group and my colleagues at the digital media project. I’d especially like to thank Ben McCorkle, Rebecca Dingo, Sara Webb-Sunderhaus, Vera Dukaj, Aaron McKain, Cormac Slevin, Lisa Ann Robertson, Michael Harker, and Catherine Braun. My years in Columbus have also been greatly enriched by my many wonderful friends. I would like, though, to give a special shout out to Rebecca, Ann, Heather, Rita, Abby, Jeremy, Kristen, Lisa Ann, Katie, Ben, Ashley, and Zac. (I’d also like to give a shout out to my friends beyond the c-bus—Jen, Sara, D, Paul, Libby, and Jon). I would also like to thank my family—especially my parents, Rick and Marcia, and my sister, Laura--for the never-ending support and love. My parents and sister have taught me much about the importance of valuing multiple ways of learning; their critical thinking about education has strongly influenced this project, even if they wouldn’t ever vi use any of the theoretical jargon that I do. My sister, Laura, deserves special mention for reminding me at a crucial moment that my dissertation was, after all, just a “big paper.” I would like to thank my Grandmother, Margaret Rossiter, for teaching me the importance of history and for inspiring me to be advocate for social change (both within the academy and without). I ‘d also like to thank my Grandmother, Ann Palmeri, for teaching me much about the multisensory process of cooking. And, last but not least, I would like to thank The Chicken (the cranky, yet adorable, cat who generously allows me to live with her). vii VITA June 2, 1977………………….Born, Kalamazoo, MI 1999………………………….B.A. Literature, New College of Florida 2003………………………….M.A. English, The Ohio State University 2002-2006……………………Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 2004-Present…………………Technology Pedagogy Consultant, Digital Media Project, Department of English, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Palmeri, Jason. “Disability Studies, Cultural Analysis, and the Critical Practice of Technical Communication Pedagogy.” Technical Communication Quarterly. 15.1 (2006): 49-65. Palmeri, Jason and Paul Tuten. “Dialogic Negotiations / Social Constraints: A Reflective Tale of Collaboration Across the Academic-Practitioner Divide.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 48.3 (2005): 313-323. Palmeri, Jason. “When Discourses Collide: A Case Study of Inter-professional Collaborative Writing in a Medically- Oriented Law Firm.” Journal of Business Communication. 41.1 2004): 37-65. Palmeri, Jason. “A Laying on of Discourses: The Rhetoric(s) of Subjectivity in Shange’s for colored girls.” Text & Presentation. 24 (2003): 115-126. Palmeri, Jason and Sara Daum. “Fending for Themselves: A Student-Directed Model of Peer Response Writing Groups.” Public Works: Student Writing as Public Text. Eds. Emily J. Isaacs and Phoebe Jackson. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2001. 78-86. Palmeri, Jason. “Transgressive Hybridity: Reflections on the Authority of the Peer Writing Tutor.” Writing Lab Newsletter, 25.1 (2000): 9-11. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………..iv Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………..v Vita……………………………………………………………………………………vii Prologue………………………………………………………………...1 Chapter One: Opening………………………………………………..5 Critical Questions about Multimodality: A Literature Review………….………….….8 Interpretive Assumptions……………………………………………………………...23 Overview of Chapters…………………………………………………………………28 Chapter Two: Self……………………………………………………..30 Overture………………………………………………………………………………..34 Camera…………………………………………………………………………………36 Voice…………………………………………………………………………………...48 Disability……………………………………………………………………………….60 Research………………………………………………………………………………..69 Cooking………………………………………………………………………………...76 Reprise………………………………………………………………………………….84 Chapter Three: Mind…………………………………………………..89 Program…………………………………………………………………………………93 Creativity………………………………………………………………………………..94 Translation……………………………………………………………………………..103 Learning………………………………………………………………………………..111 Reprise…………………………………………………………………………………121 Chapter Four: Society………………………………………………..125 Liner Notes……………………………………………………………………………..129 Classical ………………………………………………………………………………..130 Critical …………………………………………..……………………………………..147 Reprise………………………………………………………………………………….165 ix Chapter Five: Weaving……………………………………………….169 Principle #1……………………………………………………………………………..171 Principle #2……………………………………………………………………………..175 Principle #3……………………………………………………………………………..181 Principle #4……………………………………………………………………………..185 Principle #5……………………………………………………………………………..189 Epilogue:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Composition Theory for Writing Teachers
    *Relations,LocationsCOV-BCov 2/2/06 10:33 AM Page 1 R E L for beginning teachers and graduate A This anthology students in composition studies and T I other related fields begins with the premise that writing is always O social, a dialogue between self and other. This “social turn” not only N underscores the value of the writing process by encouraging students S , to prewrite, draft, and revise together, but, more important, it also focuses on postprocess by foregrounding approaches to teaching writing L O RELATIONS that highlight the importance of context. Thus, this anthology seeks C RELATIONS to move “beyond process” by building on the valuable lessons from A process pedagogy and by promoting the idea that writing stands for T a radically complex network of phenomena. I O The essays collected here are organized in three overlapping N sections: Relations, which assumes that writing occurs through S LOCATIONS , LOCATIONS conversations and negotiations with others, highlights the concepts of literacy, discourse, discourse community, and genre; Locations, which P explores how writing is shaped by material places and intellectual O spaces, emphasizes the importance of contact zones, ecocomposition, S I materiality, and place; and Positions, which identifies how writing T reflects the contingency of our beliefs and values, considers markers of I O POSITIONSPOSITIONS identity such as sex, gender, race, class, ableness, and sexual orientation. N To show how some of these ideas are demonstrated or experienced in S actual classrooms, each section ends with brief “pedagogical insights” written expressly for this collection. Composition V a n Theory for d e n b Writing e r g Teachers • H u m • C l a r National Council of y Teachers of English - 1111 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature and the Cognitive Revolution: an Introduction
    Literature and the Cognitive Revolution: An Introduction Alan Richardson English, Boston College Francis F. Steen Communication Studies, UCLA Literary studies and the cognitive sciences, pursuing common interests in language, mental acts, and linguistic artifacts, have developed markedly different approaches to similar phenomena of reading, imaginative involve- ment, and textual patterning. Until quite recently, the distance between them has drawn more attention than their possible convergence (Franchi and Güzeldere ). A number of literary theorists and critics, however, have steadily been producing work that finds its inspiration, its method- ology, and its guiding paradigms through a dialogue with one or more fields within cognitive science: artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, post- Chomskian linguistics, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and evolution- ary biology. Reuven Tsur () has been developing his ‘‘cognitive poet- ics’’ since the s; the prominent psychoanalytic critic Norman Holland (: ) demonstrated the advantages of attending to the ‘‘more powerful psychology’’ emerging from cognitive neuroscience in ; Mark Turner (: viii) advanced his far-reaching project of a ‘‘cognitive rhetoric’’ in ; and Ellen Spolsky (: ) trenchantly brought a theory of ‘‘cogni- tive instability’’ to bear on literary interpretation in . These and like- minded critics respond to the limitations (or, in Spolsky’s case, missed op- portunities) of poststructuralist conceptions of meaning and interpretation by questioning the reigning models in the field, whether in the interest of Poetics Today : (Spring ). Copyright © by the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/poetics-today/article-pdf/23/1/1/458295/01.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 2 Poetics Today 23:1 displacing, reworking, supplementing, or fundamentally regrounding them (Hart ).
    [Show full text]
  • The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies
    H E S S E / T H E P L A C E O F C R EA T I V E W R I T I NG Douglas Hesse The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies For different reasons, composition studies and creative writing have resisted one another. Despite a historically thin discourse about creative writing within College Composition and Communication, the relationship now merits attention. The two fields’ common interest should link them in a richer, more coherent view of writing for each other, for students, and for policymakers. As digital tools and media expand the nature and circula- tion of texts, composition studies should pay more attention to craft and to composing texts not created in response to rhetorical situations or for scholars. In recent springs I’ve attended two professional conferences that view writ- ing through lenses so different it’s hard to perceive a common object at their focal points. The sessions at the Associated Writing Programs (AWP) consist overwhelmingly of talks on craft and technique and readings by authors, with occasional panels on teaching or on matters of administration, genre, and the status of creative writing in the academy or publishing. The sessions at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) reverse this ratio, foregrounding teaching, curricular, and administrative concerns, featur- ing historical, interpretive, and empirical research, every spectral band from qualitative to quantitative. CCCC sponsors relatively few presentations on craft or technique, in the sense of telling session goers “how to write.” Readings by authors as performers, in the AWP sense, are scant to absent.
    [Show full text]
  • The DIVIDED SELF Metaphor: a Cognitive-Linguistic Study of Two Poems by Nabokov1
    International Journal of IJES English Studies UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA http://revistas.um.es/ijes The DIVIDED SELF metaphor: A cognitive-linguistic study of two poems by Nabokov1 Mª ASUNCIÓN BARRERAS GÓMEZ * Universidad de La Rioja Received: 30/10/2014. Accepted: 17/02/2015. ABSTRACT This paper will approach two of Nabokov’s poems from the perspective of embodied realism in Cognitive Linguistics. We will shed light on the reasons why we believe that Nabokov makes use of the DIVIDED SELF metaphor in his poetry. In the analysis of the poems we will explain how the Subject is understood in the author’s life in exile whereas the Self is understood in the author’s feelings of anguish and longing for his Russian past. Finally, we will also explain how Nabokov’s use of the DIVIDED SELF metaphor thematically structures both poems. KEYWORDS: Cognitive Linguistics, DIVIDED SELF metaphor, Subject, Self. RESUMEN Este artículo explicará dos poemas de Nabokov desde la perspectiva de la lingüística cognitiva. Se razonará porqué consideramos que Nabokov utiliza la metáfora del YO DIVIDIDO en su poesía. En el análisis se explicará cómo el sujeto se entiende en la vida del exilio del autor mientras que el ego se aprecia en los sentimientos de angustia y nostalgia por su pasado ruso. Finalmente, también explicaremos cómo el uso de la metáfora del YO DIVIDIDO estructura temáticamente ambos poemas. PALABRAS CLAVE: Lingüística cognitiva, metáfora del YO DIVIDIDO, sujeto, ego. _____________________ *Address for correspondence: María Asunción Barreras Gómez. Departamento de Filologías Modernas, Universidad de la Rioja, C/ San José de Calasanz s/n, 26004 Logroño (La Rioja), Spain; e-mail: [email protected] © Servicio de Publicaciones.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Studies in Writing & Rhetoric
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 284 257 CS 210 701 AUTHOR Berlin, James A. TITLE Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Studies in Writing & Rhetoric. INSTITUTION Conference on Coll. Composition and Communication, Urbana, Ill. REPORT NO ISBN-0-8093-1360-X PUB DATE 87 NOTE 237p.; Foreword by Donald C. Stewart. AVAILABLE FROMSouthern Illinois University Press, P.0 Box 3697, Carbondale, IL 62901 ($8.50). PUB TYPE Books (010) -- Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC10 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Classroom Techniques; *College English; *Educational History; Educational Philosophy; *Epistemology; *Expository Writing; Higher Education; *Rhetoric; Theory Practice Relationship; Writing (Composition); Writing Instruction IDENTIFIERS *Rhetorical Theory ABSTRACT Intended for teachers of college composition, this history of major and minor developments in the teaching of writing in twentieth-century American colleges employs a taxonomy of theories based on the three epistemological categories (objective, subjective, and transactional) dominating rhetorical theory and practice. The first section of the book provides an overview of the three theories, specifically their assumptions and rhetorics. The main chapterscover the following topics: (1) the nineteenth-century background, on the formation of the English department and the subsequent relationship of rhetoric and poetic; (2) the growth of the discipline (1900-1920), including the formation of the National Council of Teachers of English, the appearance of the major schools
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Rhetoric of Effect: Energy Flow As a Means of Persuasion in Inaugurals
    Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 12-25 10.1515/topling-2016-0010 Cognitive rhetoric of effect: energy flow as a means of persuasion in inaugurals Serhiy Potapenko Nikolai Gogol State University of Nizhyn, Ukraine . Abstract Cognitive rhetoric of effect deals with creating a referent’s favourable image throughout four text-forming stages: invention (looking for arguments); disposition (argument arrangement); elocution (verbal ornamentation); and performance, combining the ancient canons of memory and delivery. The cognitive procedures of rhetoric of effect rest on conceptual structures of sensory-motor origin: image schemas, i.e. recurring dynamic patterns of our perceptual interactions and motor programmes (Johnson, 1987, p.xiv), and force dynamics, i.e. a semantic category in the realm of physical force generalized into domains of internal psychological relationships and social interactions (Talmy, 2000, p.409). The embedding of sensory-motor structures into the text-forming stages reveals that cognitive rhetorical effects are created by managing the energy flow, which consists of force and motion transformations denoted by particular linguistic units. The phenomenon is exemplified by the analysis of the way impressions of freedom celebration and freedom defence are formed in the inaugurals of J.F. Kennedy (1961) and G.W. Bush (2005) respectively. Key words cognitive rhetoric of effect, ethos, image schema, force dynamics, inaugural address Introduction understanding derives from seeing Classical rhetoric is generally treated as a rhetoric as a science, a virtue, an art, a systematic and comprehensive body of faculty, or a knack (Kennedy, 2007, knowledge primarily intended to teach p.119). On the one hand, comprehending public speaking (Kennedy, 2007, p.104).
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Poetics
    Cognitive Poetics Chloe Harrison and Peter Stockwell The origins and principles of cognitive poetics The explicit application of cognitive science to literary studies has a fairly recent history. The term ‘cognitive poetics’ was coined by Reuven Tsur in the 1970s to refer to his own research in the perceptual effects of literary works in readers (see Tsur 1992). Over the last two decades, the term has expanded its application to include the study of literary texts and readings which draws on cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics. Even more broadly, a ‘cognitive literary studies’ has emerged in which more general matters of evolutionary criticism, embodiment and social cognition have been brought to bear as part of a critical theory of literature. In this chapter, we take the middle extent of the field of cognitive poetics: the study of literary texts and readings which draws centrally on cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics. Central to this view of the field is a stylistic concern that any readerly or interpretative account must be underpinned by transparent textual evidence. Of course, the implicit understanding that matters of readerly perception and cognition are pertinent to the reading of literature is a practice as old as the most ancient observations on literary activity. To this extent, a consistent thread can be delineated stretching from ancient Greek, Roman, Indian and Chinese rhetorical arts to the present account (which has even occasionally been termed ‘cognitive rhetoric’). In our own time, however, the scholarly study of literature has been seized by successive crises of confidence throughout the 20th century, culminating in an anxiety about its own ‘Theory’ that has most recently been resolved by a retreat into historiography: obscurantism has been replaced by a rather simple ‘history of the book’ and literary scholarship has essentially become a narrow form of cultural studies.
    [Show full text]
  • First-Year Composition and Transfer: a Quantitative Study James D
    First-Year Composition and Transfer: A Quantitative Study James D. Williams, Rhetoric & Linguistics, Soka University Minami Hattori, Psychology, University of Notre Dame Contact: [email protected] Abstract The present study investigated the effect of writing pedagogy on transfer by examining the effect of pedagogical orientation (WAC/WID or ‘traditional’) on content-area grades. Participants were 1,052 undergraduates from 17 schools throughout the United States. Hypothesis was that the WAC/WID orientation would lead to higher transfer levels as measured by participants’ higher content-area performance. Composition grades were collected in year one; content-area grades where collected in year two. Propensity scores were calculated to stratify the groups and minimize selection bias of writing- class assignment, thereby allowing quasi-causal inference. An ANOVA was performed on the resulting 2- by-5 stratified data. Results indicated that students who completed the WAC/WID composition classes received significantly higher content grades than those in the ‘traditional’ writing classes. The results confirmed the hypothesis. Keywords: transfer, academic performance, composition, pedagogy First-Year Composition and Transfer: A Quantitative Study Concerns about the value and intellectual rigor of first-year composition (FYC) are long standing (e.g., Bamberg, 1997; Connors, 1995; Skeffington, 2012), and various studies have reported that FYC does not help students become better writers (e.g., Arum & Roksa, 2011; Fleming, 2002; Zorn, 2013). Although conceptions of ‘better writer’ vary considerably, a consensus nevertheless has formed that FYC should, at a minimum, provide students with transferable writing skills that help them succeed in content-area courses. As Wardle (2007) noted, the FYC requirement throughout US colleges and universities ‘suggests that administrators, policy makers, parents, and students expect the course to prepare students for the writing they will do later—in the university and even beyond it.
    [Show full text]
  • Composition Studies/English Education Connections
    Published on The Writing Instructor (http://writinginstructor.com) English Education Mentoring Composition Studies/English Education Connections Author(s): W. Douglas Baker, Elizabeth Brockman, Jonathan Bush, and Kia Jane Richmond Publication History: The Writing Instructor, September 2007 At the 2001 CCCC, a special interest group met for the first time. Jonathan Bush and Janet Alsup were the co-founders of this SIG, and members were primarily English educators who had completed graduate studies in rhetoric and composition; why else would they be attending the C’s? Five years later, the group—currently known as Composition/English Education Connections—has plans to meet at both CCCC and NCTE, and it is still evolving; however, “professional profile” patterns of participants have begun to emerge. SIG members tend to teach writing or literacy-related methods classes for pre-service English teachers, and they often supervise field experiences and/or student teaching for English majors. In addition, they often work with in-service teachers in National Writing Project sites or graduate composition courses. However, SIG members usually combine these English education responsibilities with so-called “straight” composition roles; more specifically, they are often (or in the past have been) affiliated with first-year composition programs, WAC/WID initiatives, or writing centers. Not surprisingly, then, some SIG members teach in English departments, others teach in education departments, and still others have dual placements in both professional settings. Everyone is welcome. The SIG’s formation coincides with the publication of two significant and closely related texts: Robert Tremmel and William Broz’s Teaching Writing Teachers of High School English and First-Year Composition and a special issue of English Education (volume 31.4 to be precise).
    [Show full text]
  • 08075Chap01 X.Pdf
    Foreword CONTENTS FOREWORD: A REFLECTION ON LITERATURE AND COMPOSITION, TWENTY YEARS LATER Winifred Bryan Horner. ix PREFACE . xiii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . xv 1 Introduction: “What Do You Folks Teach over There, Anyway?” Linda S. Bergmann . 1 I Institutional Contexts 2 Composition, Literary Studies, and the End(s) of Civic Education Dominic DelliCarpini . 17 3 Restructuring in Higher Education and the Relationship between Literature and Composition Timothy J. Doherty . 36 4 Causes and Cures for Our Professional Schizophrenia Edward A. Kearns . 54 5 Rhetoric, Literature, and the Ruined University Eve Wiederhold . 73 II Departmental Cultures 6 In this Corner . Barry M. Maid . 93 7 Along the DMZ between Composition and Literature John Heyda . 109 vii a08075_fm 7 1/18/06, 11:59 PM Foreword 8 Whole English, Whole Teachers: Maintaining the Balance between Rhetorical and Literary Expertise Dennis Ciesielski. 124 III Applications in the Classroom 9 Computer-Mediated Communication and the Confluence of Composition and Literature Katherine Fischer, Donna Reiss, and Art Young . 143 10 Composing English 102: Reframing Students’ Lives through Literature Edith M. Baker . 171 11 The Missing Voice in the Debate: What Students Say about Literature in Composition Mary T. Segall . 191 AFTERWORD: A COMPLEX AFFIRMATION OF READING AND WRITING Patricia Harkin . 205 WORKS FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION Linda S. Bergmann . 221 INDEX . 231 EDITORS . 243 CONTRIBUTORS . 245 viii a08075_fm 8 1/18/06, 11:59 PM Introduction: “What DoC YouHAPTER Folks OTeachNE over There, Anyway?” Introduction: “What Do You Folks Teach over There, Anyway?” LINDA S. BERGMANN Purdue University he title of this introduction reiterates a question I’ve spent T nearly an entire career trying to answer, a question asked (not unkindly) by colleagues across the disciplines as I worked with various Writing Across the Curriculum projects and pro- grams.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1963 Composition Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Computed, Or Demonstrated by Any Other Means of Technology
    Jeff Rice Wayne State University __________________________________________ THE 1963 COMPOSITION REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED, COMPUTED, OR DEMONSTRATED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF TECHNOLOGY rand narratives, Jean-François Lyotard tells us, signify a modernist impulse to compress history into sweeping generalizations. “The grand narrative,” Lyotard proclaims, “has lost its credibility, regardless of Gwhat mode of unification it uses, regardless of whether it is a speculative narrative or a narrative of emancipation” (37). Composition Studies, like all disciplines, suffers from its own grand narratives. Notably, Stephen Northʼs assertion that 1963 marks the beginning of contemporary Composition Studies signifies one type of grand narrative often trumpeted in Composition circles. “We can therefore date the birth of modern Composition, capital C, to 1963,” North writes. “And what marks its emergence as a nascent academic field more than anything else is this need to replace practice as the fieldʼs dominant mode of inquiry” (North 15). Northʼs remarks, coupled with similar statements made by Robert Connors, Lester Faigley, and Edward P.J. Corbett, create a mythic historical past, what Lyotard refers to as one “incapable of describing that meaning adequately” (31). In what has become an accepted reading of Composition Studies history, this particular meaning of Composition is traced to the influential 1963 meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, as well as the 1963 publications of Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoerʼs Research in Written Composition and Albert Kitzhaberʼs Themes, Theories, and Therapy. In this narrative, because of these moments, the practice of reporting classroom activities and results (what North calls “lore”) yields to theoretical concerns regarding writing instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WRITING CENTER AS a SETTING for LEARNING to TUTOR DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment O
    FROM TRAINING TO PRACTICE: THE WRITING CENTER AS A SETTING FOR LEARNING TO TUTOR DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Krista H. Stonerock, B.A., M.A ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Dr. George Newell, Adviser __________________________ Dr. Maia Pank-Mertz Adviser College of Education Dr. Anna Soter ABSTRACT Although tutorial programs have become key components of college freshmen writing programs, few studies have considered how students learn to tutor their peers. This study is a qualitative examination of a first-year writing tutorial program situated within a college writing center with a mission to ensure student retention in the college. In the tutorials, peer tutors consulted biweekly with basic writers throughout their first year of college. The peer tutors were trained in a three-week tutor training program designed to introduce them to both writing center theory and tutoring strategies which are aligned with the writing center mission and goals. Case study methods were used to consider the transfer of teaching tools from tutor training to the tutors’ practices in the writing conferences. Through an activity-theory analysis of tutor training sessions, audio-taped and transcribed conferences, field notes, observation-based interviews, and other data, the two tutors’ decision-making was interpreted as a function of their participation in tool- mediated action—both conceptual and practical—in a range of settings. The research employed ethnographic methods to follow the peer tutors through a three-week training program and a fifteen-week semester of tutoring.
    [Show full text]