Collaboration and Social Constructs

http://libguides.stthomas.edu/c.php?g=88711&p=572570

Authorship poses many problems. We can see this everyday regarding the use of sources, misuse of another’s words, illegal pirating on the Internet, the list goes on and on. This is really not a new phenomenon but rather one that is gaining prominence as we experience a shift in how we view authorship and the writing process.

Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford address this shift in writing strategy in their article “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship” (2001). They argue for a re-evaluation of how we view authorship. The wider world beyond the humanities is frequently built upon the collaborative efforts of a team. This collaboration is making its way into the humanities slowly but surely. Yet we still place singular authorship on a pedestal. One of Ede’s and Lunsford’s examples is that of the doctorate candidate and how that person is expected to write their dissertation alone yet contribute something original and meaningful to their respective field. Instead, they propose that looking at collaborative and non-collaborative authorship has the potential to reveal “the powerful ideological, cultural, social, and political forces that work to resist, co-opt, or contain change,” (Ede and Lunsford 356). Furthermore, they conclude that by examining the strategies of collaborative and non-collaborative processes we can work to replace debilitating academic practices of authorship that hinder progress and learning.

In conjunction to understanding the collaborative process of writing in the university, we also need to evaluate how we perpetuate ideas of writing in the ways that we instruct writing practices in the classroom in university settings. David Bartholomae in “Inventing the University” (1985), early on makes a call for understanding how we expect unattainable results from our students by asking them to join academic conversations that they are wholly unprepared to join. We ask our students to “learn to speak our language. Or he must dare to speak it or to carry off the bluff, since speaking and writing will most certainly be required long before the skill is “learned.” And this, understandably, causes problems” (Bartholomae 606). In asking students to write an academic paper, we are most often asking them to write to a level that they are not prepared to write to with the added burden of trying to write to someone that is far beyond their own comprehension of the topic they are writing about. And to make matters worse, we are asking them to use a discourse that they are unfamiliar with and unprepared to utilize. Thus we often see our students slip into the “teacher role” where they shift voice from conversation to lecture which can potentially alienate the reader (the teacher) because of the shift in power structure. 

This idea of alienation relates to Ede’s and Lunsford’s idea about evaluating writing practices and authorship for a revelation of ideology. We ask students to offer academic conclusions and ideas to the reader by mimicking works by respected academics who are accustomed to making the rhetorical moves of their field and furthermore have the authority to do so. Instead, as teachers we need to teach “students to revise for readers” which will in turn prepare them to eventually write with the reader in mind from the beginning of the writing process (Bartholomae 609). Essentially, we need to teach students how to be appropriated by the writing communities so they can learn the expected discourses of those communities.

To do such instruction, writing teachers need to be more aware of students and their needs specifically in relation to social constructs and classroom organization. Glynda Hull, Mike Rose, Kay Losey Fraser, and Marisa Castellano speak to this idea in their article on remedial writing instruction titled,“Remediation as Social Construct: Perspectives from an Analysis of Classroom Discourse” (1991). In their article, the authors focus their attention on remedial social constructs and the influence those particular constructs have on student outcomes but much of their discussion can be applied to any writing course. Through their analysis of real classroom interaction, the authors offer four major suggestions to combat negative social constructs present in writing classrooms: “remembering teacher development, attending to classroom discourse, making macro-micro connections, and rethinking the language of cultural difference” (Hull et al. 799). 

Teacher development is exactly what it sounds like in that we need to continue to grow and learn as instructors and not fall into stagnant teaching practices that do not address the needs of our students. Closely tied to this concept is the suggestion of attending to classroom discourse because “discourse structures direct talk in particular ways and that certain moves within those structures can instantiate assumptions about cognition and undercut creative thinking and engagement” (Hull et al. 804). Examining how the classroom operates at a macro and micro level also aids in this construction of a positive learning environment because it asks the teacher to objectively evaluate how the classroom works in relation to students and social/cultural expectations of writing and student ability. And finally, we need to evaluate how language and social conditions shape how we use language as a social instrument that can potentially devalue a student and place undue cultural characteristics upon them that hinder learning or poses lofty expectations that they are unable to meet.

Writing and language are closely tied in that how we use each are heavily influenced by social constructs of what constitutes each. We need to evaluate those social constructs and learn what they have to offer/hinder the writing classroom. How do those expectations, both attainable and not attainable, shape how we instruct students and how do our teaching practices perpetuate those social constructs? Are those constructs beneficial to our students and the larger society as a whole?

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1985. 605-630. Print.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea A. Lunsford. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” Modern Language Association 116.2 (Mar., 2001). 354-369. Print. 

Hull, Glynda, Mike Rose, Kay Losey Fraser, and Marisa Castellano. “Remediation as Social Construct: Perspectives from an Analysis of Classroom Discourse.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 1991. 783-812. Print.

Image borrowed from:

http://libguides.stthomas.edu/c.php?g=88711&p=572570

Community of Writers

http://aaronswank.com/2012/11/15/what-prevents-us-from-getting-into-communitygroup/

Community...what does that word really mean? Most would probably conjure up a vague mental image of a group of people getting along together. The word community tends to give a sentiment of closeness and goodness. Nothing particularly concrete comes to my mind when given the word community and that vagueness in community is exactly the issue behind much of writing instruction in our classrooms.

Joseph Harris in his article “The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing” addresses the issue of what it really means to instruct our students with the idea of “community” given the lack of an unambiguous definition surrounding the concept. He builds upon the ideas proposed by Patricia Bizzell and David Bartholomae, and suggests that we need to take a closer look at what we are teaching when we teach writing as a communal activity. He wrote, “We write not as isolated individuals but as members of communities whose beliefs, concerns, and practices both instigate and constrain, at least in part, the sorts of things we can say. Our aims and intentions in writing are thus not merely personal, idiosyncratic, but reflective of the communities to which we belong” (Harris 749). This idea of community as a shaping agent is a critical factor to why many teachers have kept this vaguely formed idea as a pivotal component of their teaching pedagogies. Harris explores this phenomenon of community throughout his article and relies on the idea of opposing binaries and how those have a pivotal impact on how students approach writing.

Many writing curriculums approach writing with one of two attitudes: that of writing being a communal effort and the other being that of the power of the individual imagination. Since many academic writing programs are moving towards the community approach, we have developed a sense of a we which is a very powerful motive for many writers but it also has the adverse effect of creating a they. Both terms create a sense of other and we challenge our students to negotiate that binary. Many times, they come up short and we are disappointed as instructors because we have aimed to create a community which has failed. More often than not, our students end up summarizing thoughts of others within that particular community that they are challenged to write in. This is not a fault of the students but rather a problem that writing instructors must frame and teach to the students. How do you as the writer negotiate different types of discourse? Harris proposed that “they [the students] might better be encouraged towards a kind of polyphony - an awareness of and pleasure in the various competing discourses that make up their own” (754).

Writing instructors must teach students how to “reposition” (Harris 755) themselves in relation to different competing discourses when they approach academic writing, or any writing for that matter. One idea proposed by Wayne Campbell Peck, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins advocates towards writing and the issue of community in writing is their approach to alternative discourse or “community literacy” (1102). In this idea, they define four key parts that support community literacy as a means to negotiating writing in different discourses.

Community literacy “supports social change” meaning that problem solving for a purpose is a key aspect behind communal writing practice (Peck, Flower, and Higgins 1102). The second component of community literacy is the idea of “intercultural conversation” which gets at the idea that oppositional viewpoints must be in constant conversation with one another to reach a solution and that this discourse is “bridging conversations that seek out diverse perspectives for the purpose of reaching mutual ends” (Peck, Flower, and Higgins 1102). The practical implications of intercultural conversations is that this will bring about a strategic approach that supports the new discussions (Peck, Flower, and Higgins 1102). And finally, the fourth component of community literacy is the shared experience of inquiry which means to “purposefully examine the genuine conflicts, assumptions, and practices we bring to these new partnerships” (Peck, Flower, and Higgins 1102).

From these two articles on community, we as instructors can see the difficulties that arise from this commonly taught approach to writing as a communal activity. Community is not an altogether bad thing for us to teach in composition. We just have to approach this idea with caution and propose a meaningful idea of what community actually is for our students. They do not need to completely jump from one discourse community to another but rather we need to teach them the meaningful tools to integrate their ideas and who they are as writers to develop their own writing voices and styles which address their given writing context. They do not need to completely forget their prior knowledge and abandon their own opinions when they write but instead, they need to be taught how to integrate their prior experiences and given opportunities to develop their understanding of what constitutes community.

We cannot leave all the pressure on our students. We as teachers must also strive to build our own writing to be more welcoming for conversation. Much of the academic world is somewhat off-putting to newcomers. By practicing community literacy and building our own skills in writing, we can share those tools for bridging different discourse communities with our students who are new to academic situations which call for integration and conversation, not merely summarization.

Works Cited

Harris, Joseph. “The Idea of Community Literacy in the Study of Writing.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009. 748-758. Print. 

Peck, Wayne Campbell, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins. "Community Literacy." The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009. 1097-1116. Print.

Image borrowed from: 

 http://aaronswank.com/2012/11/15/what-prevents-us-from-getting-into-communitygroup/

A Possible Love Letter to Expressivism: What Can We Use as Teachers?

http://booksaroundthetable.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/love-that-old-macguffin/

What is expressivism? James Kinneavy, in Expressive Discourse, wrote, “Expressive components enter into all discourse, but in some discourse they become the dominating components,” (372). Seems fair enough, right? We write something and in some capacity, whether we intend it or not, our “author’s” voice comes out, right? Right. We see it all the time when we read so this seems like a pretty solid statement. Kinneavy listed the expressivist writing examples of diaries, suicide notes, and certain book reviews and discussed them all as having elements of expressive discourse. Beyond this list, I would add that some of the more prominent genres where we can see this “blatant” author is in newspaper articles (specifically editorials and opinion pieces), in blogs (yes, even this one!), social networking sites, and online fan-bases. This is obviously not an extensive list but you get the idea.

We can obviously see the author when reading any of the above examples. I would argue then that everything we write has an element of expressivism. When we write, we shine through our words as the author. Yet expressivism has received a lot of grief in the academic field. Why? Well, for starters, there does not seem to be a real definition or solid underlying idea for expressivism. Beyond expression as an integral part of communication, there does not appear to be a solid basis for this line of inquiry. Indeed, “it is easy to take the expressive component of language for granted precisely because it is so fundamental,” (Kinneavy 373). So what are we to do with this contested means of understanding?

I propose that we learn from what expressivism has to offer and apply some of its more important elements to writing instruction. Many contemporary classrooms are experiencing a shift towards understanding of audience. It makes sense in so many ways, yet I think we are missing a piece of this puzzle by not including more study on the author. 

Towards the end of his introduction, Kinneavy proposed a definition of style as “the symptom of true expression” (382). I believe this really gets at the heart of how we need to view the author and audience in the classroom. So many students come to us, the teachers, as some sort of master of writing knowledge, when in all actuality we are on the same path as our students...we just happen to be a little farther down the way. They come to us looking to learn how to write effectively. How are we supposed to accomplish this monumental task in a semester or two? It simply cannot be done...period. 

What a depressing task then to be a writing teacher. We are given a mission that we cannot complete and have no hopes of ever completing. I propose that our task is not quite as hopeless as it might first appear to be. Expressivism has to be a means of reaching out and developing their ability to create meaning for their audience whatever the rhetorical situation. Many people come to the table with the idea that writing is a “discovery” experience and somehow through practice and instruction they will find some magical method for writing that will always succeed. In their article “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem,” Linda Flower and John Hayes combat this misinterpretation of the writing experience and claim that it “obscures the fact that writers don’t find meanings, they make them,” (467). With this view in mind, we can constructively move ahead to developing effective strategies to help students become more aware of rhetorical moves they can make to become better writers. By giving them the tools of  understanding “rhetorical situation” and “goals” (Flower and Hayes 470) we can better prepare them to overcome the stumbling blocks of new writing scenarios and unfamiliar genres. 

Those tools allow writers to reach their audience. But wait! What does audience have to do with the whole expressivist view and self? I think that we need to have a clear understanding of who we are as writers to effectively communicate to a wider audience. Writing activities that practice different rhetorical moves are helpful in grasping how to reach an audience. More personal writing assignments will grow a sense of self, or at least begin to untangle a sense of self from some of the rules that have been forced on many students from earlier writing instruction. Knowing how we write and our style (Kinneavy 382) are crucial for clear writing. 

By merely imitating an academic style of some long dead scholar that we don’t even understand, we create a false self that does not understand our thoughts and what we need to communicate to our audience. Now that being said, I think there are some benefits to studying how others approach any given writing task. In his review “Some Thoughts on Expressive Discourse: A Review Essay,” Peter Elbow concluded that “students need to understand the centrality of the notion of discourses in writing: that there are different kinds of discourse, that none are inherently right or wrong, superior or inferior, but that some are better or worse for certain audiences and purposes,” (942). 

We can study how others address their audience, what types of rhetorical moves are expected or necessary, what type of language and syntax are used, as well as what kinds of information can be shared within a given genre. There are many different benefits of studying writing and imitating how others have accomplished writing but truly good writers emerge from the chaos when they have “discovered” their own voice and are aware of how they write in relation to others. They know how to reach their audience and express their ideas effectively and grow in the ongoing conversation. 

We as teachers need to instruct our students in ways that will grow their voices and develop their styles. Writing exercises that emphasize reflection can help them gain insight. Varied readings and directed analysis of genre and prominent writers within genres could also be a valuable tool in developing better writers. It is hard to say what we need to do to accomplish this task of teaching writing. I propose that we need to work together to create a more effective and lasting curriculum that builds writers from the mess of imitation and develops their sense of self in connection with community while giving them the necessary tools to effectively express their ideas to one another.

                                                                      Works Cited

Elbow, Peter. "Some Thoughts on Expressive Discourse: A Review Essay."The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009. 933-942. Print. 

Flower, Linda and John Hayes. "The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem." The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009. 467-478. Print. 

Kinneavy, James. "Expressive Discourse."The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009. 372-386. Print. 

                                                                    Image Borrowed from:

http://booksaroundthetable.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/love-that-old-macguffin/