Ronald Lunsford on "attitude"

I've been making my way through the essays in NCTE's newly published What is "College-Level" Writing? It's an interesting book (some essays rehearse some standard issues, though even these are solid). I've been perhaps most encouraged by reading Ronald Lunsford's selection (sorry not to give the title -- I don't have the book with me), in which he argues that much of what we teach is "attitude" or "orientation" to intellectual inquiry. He seems to move in the direction of arguing that what makes writing "college" level is this disposition to deal rigorously with ideas, arguments, and texts -- to stretch and interrogate one's own thinking. While this is not a new idea, I think it takes on added importance in climates oriented towards assessment, which (whatever the good intentions are) often tend to place our focus on surface features and texts as static objects rather than as dynamic representations of students' continuing work. Especially refreshing in his essay is his ability to see in a not so well edited student critique of a biology article strong evidence of an orientation to critical reading and thinking, of reflection on one's own ideas in the process of writing, and of attempts to stretch vocabulary and thinking simultaneously, or in the very same act. It's true that figures like Bartholomae and others long ago pointed out that "rough spots" in student writing can be precisely the sites of intellectual and linguistic growth we're looking for. Yet such insights bear repeating and recasting, I think, especially as one is working one's way through a stack of apprentice research-based essays. Reading essays like Lunsford's help us emphsize what students have accoplished, so that we don't focus solely on what's missing.

Raising a half-full glass to you all,
Mark

Realistic expectations for first-year writing

I read a what I think is a sane and very encouraging remark by Muriel Harris in a new book put out by NCTE, called What is "College-Level" Writing?:

As students progress through their college education, they can be expected to grow in awareness so that what is expected of a first-year college writer is less than what is expected of a graduating senior. For example, a first-year composition student who strongly defends the need to halt immigration to the United States should show some recognition of the benefits of immigration, some awareness that there are opposing views that should be accounted for. Thus, students writing argumentation papers should be learning how to seek common ground but should be excused from not envisioning all the complexities of various groups who are concerned with immigration. (131)

These remarks may smack of common sense, but it's all too easy for us to forget -- in our reasonable attempt to encourage our students to meet high standards -- what a significant achievement a solid, balanced argument of modest proportions and research is for freshmen. We also tend to forget that they will have years to hone these skills and that their early forays into civic argumentation in writing classes are best viewed as practice. I find it especially helpful right now, as I'm requiring my students in freshman writing to take on such complex and much debated issues as stem cell research and the Patriot Act. These issues are challenging for seasoned adult writers, thinkers, citizens, academics, etc. I'd like to remind myself that students who put together even somewhat substantial, well organized, and balanced arguments on these subjects are achieving much.

disingenuous?

So often students -- even students whom I view as motivated and conscientious -- boil their approach to writing down to grade issues: "What do I need to do to get an 'A'?"

Our typical response (whether speaking amongst ourselves or lecturing students) is to stress the relative insignificance of grades and the importance of learning. If we go a little deeper, we decry the influence of a capitalistic, consumerist, excessively quantifying culture upon our students -- an influence not mitigated by our adminstrations' fixations upon assessment and measurability. If only students could focus where they ought -- on their learning processes and intellectual growth.

Even at their best and most theoretically and politically informed, such critiques -- much as I sympathzie with them -- fall flat. In part this is because it's so difficult to imagine overthrowing or radically transforming the system or environment that produces such an approach to learning in students. But it is also because we as instructors are invested in the system -- but not just in this system, but the very existence of a system. In other words, it's hard to imagine just what the educational world would look like if students could or did act the way we say we want them to. In such a world, would schools even need to exist? Students would be self-motivated learners who could teach and learn from each other. In other words, the alternative that seems to be implied at the end of these critiques of "the system" is very difficult to imagine in concrete terms -- or perhaps I just need to read more about how such alternatives have been put into practice.

introduction

Hello everyone,

I'm starting this blog as a forum to share ideas about teaching reading and writing at the college level. I'm not sure this will make it out to anyone who's interested, but I'm hoping will prove to be a useful exercise at the least.