Constructing Authority: Performativity, Podcasts, and Composition

Jones, Leigh A. "Podcasting and Performativity: Multimodal Invention in an Advanced Writing Class." Composition Studies 38.2 (2010): 75-91. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

In the article noted above, Leigh Jones argues for compositionist to use a combination of performance studies and multimodal discourse theories in conjunction with rhetorical strategies (invention, specifically) to improve the invention process and to help students establish an authoritative voice in their writing.

Jones posits that fear of risk-taking hinders the writing process for students, specifically during invention. According to Jones, risk-taking is important because "risks are required for academic productivity and creativity. Writing is a transformative process in that it requires us to imagine our audiences and ourselves anew [...]" (76). To encourage students in these areas, Jones recommends using podcasts to “mak[e] their risky invention process more productive and their writing process more transformative (79).

The podcast assignment, presented at the beginning the research paper, required students, in teams of two, to create a five-minute podcast. The podcast was to inform the class about a controversial issue in the news that the student planned to write about over the semester. Working with their partners, students had freedom as to whose topic was used or not used and the content of the script. Completed after an annotated bibliography, the podcasts provided an audience for the annotated bibliography and helped students to productively use their preliminary research to create content for their podcasts. The assignment required students to pretend to be experts/authorities on their subject. Because students knew the podcast would be played for the class, many recorded and re-recorded in hopes to make their podcast more effective. This, according to Jones, shows audience awareness during the invention process, which impacted their arrangement, summaries, and explanations in the podcasts.

According to Jones, performance is inherent in composition. The writing classroom, itself, is a “performative space that is most often treated as natural in the moment” (79). The performance of teacher as authority and students as learners negatively impacts the writing process, as students are asked to go from being subordinates in the class to authorities within their writing. Podcasting as “an epistemological tool in the invention process” allows students to pretend to have authority, changing the dynamic of the classroom and shifting their perspective on their writing and their authority over their subject (78).

I recommend Jones’ article to scholars in rhetoric and composition because his research presents a path to joining classical rhetoric (invention) with contemporary discourse/writing (podcast). As all our lives are more digitally mediated, multimodal discourse becomes more important.  Integrating multimodal writing will help prepare students for writing in and for these environments. Jones’ article does not provide definitive answers to questions of using technology in the classroom or effectively teaching the writing process; however, it does add to the conversation on performance studies and the importance of multimodal composition. I think podcasting maybe the first of many “performative epistemology” tools that can help students with the writing process and increase rhetorical awareness.

(Re)Framing the Conversation about MOOCS: Rhetorical and Pedagogical approaches in Duke's FYC MOOC

Abstract:

MOOCs have become a contested area within higher education due to their perceived impact on its stakeholders. Currently, MOOCs are being presented as either the demise or resurrection of higher education. This latest technological trend has stirred debate about the cost of education, significance of learning, and the role of teachers. In addition, concerns about the impact of technology and business on education have arisen. An often overlooked area in regards to MOOCs are humanities courses, which are not as economical and transferable as other disciplines. As more and more disciplines are presented via MOOCs, the question arises: Will MOOCs work for Writing? Currently, there have been 3 Composition MOOCs taught at Duke University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Ohio State University, respectively. This project will examine Duke University's composition MOOC, English Composition I: Achieving Expertise, using the syllabus, instructor reflection, and textbook to reconstruct the course, this paper explores the following questions: Will MOOCs work for writing instruction? What rhetorical and pedagogical strategies are used in a composition MOOC? Do these strategies "disrupt" or advance current rhetorical and pedagogical approaches in composition instruction both face-to-face and online? Ultimately, I argue that the rhetorical and pedagogical approaches used in MOOCs are not a step forward for rhetoric and composition; however, MOOCs provided an opportunity for innovation in writing in all environments.

Anderson, Terry and Jon Dron. "Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12.3 (2011): 80-97. Web.Tate, Gary, Amy

Bartholomae, David. "Inventing the University." Journal of Basic Writing 5.1 (1986): 4-23. Web

Berlin, James A. "Richard Whatley and Current-Traditional Rhetoric." College English 42.1 (1980): 10-17. Web

Comer, Denise. English Composition I: Achieving expertise. Duke University and Coursera. n.d. Web. 12 Oct 2013.

--- "MOOCs Offer Students Opportunity to Grow as Writers." http://www.iiis.org/CDs2013/CD2013SCI/IMSCI_2013/PapersPdf/EA653TO.pdf

Daniel, Sir John. "Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility." Journal of Interactive Media in Education 18 (2012): n.p. Web.


Fulkerson, Richard. "Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century." College Composition and Communication 56.4 (2005): 654-687. Web.


Krause, Steven. D. "MOOC Response about 'Listening to World Music' " College Composition and Communication 64.4 (2013): 689-604 Print



Liyanagunawardena, Tharindu Rekha, Andrew Alexander Adams, and Shirley Ann Williams. "MOOCs: A Systemic Study of the Published Literature 2008-2012." The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14.3 (2013): 202-226. Web

Rice, Jeff. "What I Learned in MOOC." College Composition and Communication 64.4 (2013): 695- 703

Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, Eds. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.


"Pedagogy." Coursera. n.d. Web 12 Oct 2013

"Postsecondary Success." Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. n.d Web. 12 Oct 2013.

Embracing FYC as a General Education Course

Miles, Libby et al. “Thinking Vertically.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 503-511. Web. 1 Oct 2013

            In “Thinking Vertically,” Libby Miles et al. argue that first-year students should be taught “situated procedural knowledge”(576). Miles et al support a vertical curricula, which includes the following principles: recursion over time, core courses common to all majors, and situated production in a variety of contexts over time. This curriculum is spread out over several courses, which could be several semesters or years for students. For example, basic writing concepts would be presented in 100 level courses, and 200 level courses, which would have students from a variety of disciplines, would be argumentative writing and digital writing. Compositionist would design courses in sequences that connect to and build on one another. The aim of this, according to the authors, is to present transferable knowledge. This will help students make connections across/between disciplines. Vertical curriculum encourages the idea of FYC as a general education course, freeing FYC to be designed based on the different needs of the students and to design a menu of advanced writing courses, providing different situations for student writers. This curriculum leaves space for multiple research models and course designs in order to champion the hybrid, multimodal, and interdisciplinary nature of writing studies. They argue against teaching students to be scholars, as all students do not want to become academics. The aim of the vertical curriculum is for students to become independent and critical thinkers intellectuals.

            Although, this article is over 5 years old, it is important for rhetoric and composition instructors because there is still debate about the goal of FYC and its role in the University. This article was originally written in response to Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s article about FYC being transformed into a writing studies or writing about writing course. Since then writing about writing has taken off (even being presented as WAW). However, the debate about what it means to teach writing and what pedagogical approaches should be used in FYC continue. In my research, this was the only articles that embraced FYC as a general education course. This is interesting and valuable information given that most in the rhetoric and composition field resist this label. What is gained in embracing FYC as a general education course? Would moving toward a generic approach to writing instruction help students to write in a variety of disciplines? This article attempts to define the role of FYC. Should the course prepare students to write within the discipline? Should the course prepare students to write in the university (across multiple disciplines) It is important to define the role of this course within the university, as FYC impacts perceptions of English Studies as a discipline, incoming students, and our individual research and classroom practices.

You Can't Take It With You: Transfer in FYC

Fishman, Jenn and Mary Jo Reiff. "Program Profile: Taking the High Road: Teaching For Transfer In An FYC Program." Composition Forum 18 (2009): 1-14.  Humanities International Complete. Web 29 Sept. 2013. 

My focus for this course, thus far, has been centered on exploring the role of FYC in the University. This post continues that exploration by examining what students should take away from FYC. In their article, "Program Profile: Taking the High Road: Teaching For Transfer In An FYC Program," Fishman and Reiff present that FYC should provide students with knowledge/skills that can be used (transferred) in courses beyond FYC. The authors site the knowledge transfer work done by D.N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon as a core part of their curriculum revision. Perkins and Salomon, educational theorist, present two types of transfer (low road and high road). Low-road transfer refers to routine cognitive work and high-road transfer deals with analytic thinking. They also present two related pedagogies (hugging and bridging). Hugging teaches toward automatic response, whereas bridging teaches "through activities that promote problem solving and generalizing across disparate examples." Writing instructors, particularly FYC instructors, desire high road transfer, as it enables students to apply skills learned in FYC in other courses. 

The question that Fishman and Reiff pose is "how do we design a writing curriculum that creates the conditions for high road transfer?" The answer to this question is rhetoric, which they argue is the bridge between the program’s two goals of "teaching students core writing strategies and encouraging them to communicate confidently in multiple writing situations." The authors show how UT-Knoxville, a traditional English department where literature specialists hold the most of the tenure-track positions, transformed their program to one that is "both responsible and responsive to the writing needs of students beyond the first year." The new curriculum focused on the writing needs of the students. Through conversations with instructors about course goals and challenges, the new courses had common assignments and focused on broad knowledge areas of rhetorical learning, genre knowledge, and discourse community knowledge. In addition the curriculum also emphasized teaching transferable tools, such as rhetorical awareness, reading rhetorically, reading as writers, and developing strategies for writing to multiple audiences for multiple purposes, using multiple mediums and modes of expressions.

English 101 was presented as "(Re)Emphasizing Rhetoric." The course focuses on staring a practical foundation for English 102, focusing on general rhetorical strategies through sequences assignments (reading rhetorically, rhetorical analysis, contextual analysis, argument paper, and source-based argument. The English 102 course has a required structure that moves from field research, to historical research, and then academic research. Each course had a theme, which was chosen by the individual instructor. The article concludes, first, by presenting that the analysis of the new curriculum is underway, and second, by arguing that teaching for transfer is not the end of FYC but an opportunity for instructors to develop assignments/activities that meet students needs without falling into the generic assignments or forgoing the use of rhetorical concepts.

Fishman and Reiff present an interesting glimpse into what it is like to revise a FYC curriculum. I think this article is necessary because it gives rhetoric and composition instructors a chance to see how other Universities are tackling issues within rhetoric and composition. FYC is a contested space and often falls into a pattern of using victim rhetoric (underpaid labor, general education course, the homeroom of the university). This article does not focus on the administrative issues that surround FYC, but on the pedagogical issues connected to FYC. This approach, I feel, shows how all stakeholders in rhetoric and composition can benefit. The students are able to get the tools/skills they need to move on to other courses/disciplines. The instructors are able to teach courses in which they can use the knowledge they have and apply their personal interests. The administration’s general education requirements are met. It is important for instructors to consider transfer of knowledge when designing and implementing FYC courses.  Whether the purpose or goal of FYC is to prepare students to write in all disciplines or to write in academic discourse, it is important that they are able to take what they have learned with them.