Face-off: Hesse v Selfe

I hate to take the Midwestern and mom-like position of "You're both right!" However...

Selfe's argument is well-thought out and compelling. In Eng. 501, we just read about some of the English department's history in the university, and as a Communication Studies major, it saddens me that most of my classmates have never had the joy (and terror and apprehension) of taking a class in public address. I found that the best speeches I gave started extemporaneously, with me just talking to myself, leaving the writing process until dead-last. While my background in learning how to formulate a written argument played a role, the students who struggled the most in public speaking are those who don't adapt their content to their presentation's form. It's true that aurality has taken a backseat to writing, and students (including us current grad students) may be handicapped for that. Learning about as many different modes of communication as possible would serve to enrich our students' lives - along with giving them tangible, real-world composing skills that all sorts of companies would love to have.

However, Hesse also makes a good point. What Selfe is calling for is a drastic re-thinking of composition. While this new definition might fly within English departments and Rhetoric and Composition, it would be necessary to sell this idea to not only other departments, but the administration and students as well. It certainly runs the risk of being seen as taking away from the "serious" work of writing. Another point on which I agree with Hesse is his questioning of just how much composing (not just writing, but creating videos, web pages, sound clips, etc.) students are actually doing outside the classroom. Personally, and before this class, I had a Twitter, Blogger, and Facebook account, and in all three I spent much more time consuming than composing. Sure, I tweeted and blogged every once in a while, and commented or changed my status once a day - but I wouldn't say that I (or most people I know of) are really utilizing all these modes. Perhaps Selfe might respond by saying that is all the more opportunity to teach these kids how to engage more fully in their world - a point I'd be inclined to agree with.

In the end, I side more with Selfe, but I like the cautionary approach of Hesse. He brings up practical problems that would need to be addressed for these changes to be implemented fully, things that can be easy to ignore when caught up in the frenzy of academic theory.

Yancey Response

The very first thing I have to do is describe what I think my job as a writing instructor is? Tough question. I mean, the only things I've read about writing pedagogy has been a couple articles this week, and we all know I've never set foot in front of a classroom before. However, I've been a student in plenty of different writing classes, so I can certainly give this a go.

My first instinct is to make sure that all my students are at comparable levels in basic skills, or GUMS (grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling) as my high school English teacher called it. After spending three years copyediting my college's newspaper, I have a hard time letting this very basic principle take a backseat. However, it seems silly to drill students in how to use a semicolon when they could be focusing on how to make the actual content of their assignment stronger. I suppose another reason why basic skills jumps to mind is because of that one piece of writing that essentially everyone has to do - writing a resume or filling out a job application. While organization will certainly help, if a student makes frequent spelling and punctuation errors, they're almost certain to end up in the trashcan rather than the acceptance pile.

Perhaps a better skill I would like my students to learn is how to write for their audience. A simple journaling assignment can change drastically depending on whether it's written for oneself, the teacher, or other students to read. For example, if it's written just for oneself, emphasis on the writing's organization will probably drop - hopefully allowing the student to explore a concept freely. Even the content of this blog entry has been altered because I know my professor and possibly other students will read this. If a student manages to learn how to write for an audience, then I know they are able to assess what they mean to write and give thought to the best way to convey their message. This can easily be associated to incorporating technology into the classroom, given how changing the medium from a tweet to a YouTube vide to an e-mail can easily change the content.

Just instinctually, I feel myself drawn to teaching the way I was taught. Emphasis on the nuts and bolts and leave the invention of actual content to the back burner, which also tends to deemphasize anything that's not print writing. I'm one of those stodgy people sneering at social networking - and I haven't even stepped in front of a classroom yet! I find myself hesitant about Yancey's inspirational speech because my mental picture of a writing classroom doesn't include a lot of tweeting or video editing. However, if this is how we are composing now... It would be ridiculous to ask student to write a paper with chalk, on a typewriter, or even pen and paper. Perhaps we're now moving on to yet a different way of composing which may make the word processor obsolete. I suppose my intent meshes with Yancey in that I want to make these new mediums essential parts of the classroom, however, I am hesitant about its actual execution.