In Toward a Composition Made Whole Jody Shipka shows that she not only
does some cool things in the composition classroom, but also that she has a
clearly defined and well-developed pedagogy. I find her assignments
fascinating, but her idea of a FYC classroom is far from mine (which will be
discussed later).
First, a writing classroom and a composition
classroom should be defined separately. I taught Rhetoric and Writing at OU,
and here I teach Intro to College Writing. A simple analysis would suggest that
the titles reveal what the focus of these courses probably is. Perhaps an Intro
to Composition course is more suited to include non-traditional ways of
composing. Such semantics are relevant when you consider the values and goals
of a writing program and what that means for the inclusion of non-alphabetic
texts in a curriculum.
Shipka expands the idea of
composition to include materiality, technology, and methodology, but still
seems to be favoring a specific type of composition. She quotes and agrees with
George and Trimbur (1999) who say that “writing, like other types of
composition (musical, graphic, handicraft, engineering design) is an act of
labor that quite literally fashions the world” (29). I therefore question why
she chooses to favor only some types of composition. We don’t teach music
composition because there is a department for that. We don’t teach engineering
design because there is a department for that. So what is it about the type of
compositions that she argues for that makes them belong in an English
classroom? Is it just using the same skill set as speech and writing (a
rhetorical skill set)?
In a writing class, I believe
the focus should be on writing, not necessarily composing. I still value a
process approach to writing, but the end product should have some weight as
well. Being an effective communicator doesn’t often afford multiple chances
(drafts). So I think practicing writing is key in order to become better at it,
meaning there must be a lot of it assigned in a classroom.
I truly think that part of my
job is to prepare students to write in college. This does not mean 101/102 are
service courses for the rest of the university, but rather they teach types of
writing that can transfer. I was never taught how to write a research paper in
my composition course, and it wasn’t until my senior year that a generous
professor sat down with me and explained a few methods of arguing. I sometimes
think about the level of work I could have been doing if those methods had come
earlier.
While that is partially how I
see a writing class, a composition class could be broadened to
include some of Shipka’s ideas. She states, “I also believe that frameworks
that provide students with opportunities to move between—while reflecting
upon—the affordances and constraints associated with different representational
systems and ways of knowing may better prepare students for the variety of
intellectual and interpersonal tasks and activities they will likely encounter
in other classes, in extracurricular spaces, as well as in their future
professions” (107).
The practice of looking for and
analyzing choices being made in any work is
valuable, and I agree that it can prepare students for tasks outside of
academia and for their jobs. But I disagree with what she says right before
this, in which she states that students who “are encouraged to make informed
rhetorically based uses of sounds, video, still images, animation, textures,
scents, and so on…” may be able to understand better how written language is functioning.
Scents? I have a hard time seeing how the rhetorically based use of a scent can
seamlessly transfer to both analyzing and writing texts.
What I would love Shipka to
discuss is how these skills are actually brought back to analyze just writing—and
I do separate writing as a different type of composing—rather than just
focusing on design, visuals, and performing. (Writing to me will always firstly
mean words. A lot of writing is done with words. Most university writing is
done with words. And if Shipka wants to call me closed-minded because I think
that then so be it.) I would argue that looking at the choices a writer is
making with only words is more difficult than in a non-alphabetic text. Even
harder is learning how to integrate what you observe into your own writing. And
that’s why I wouldn’t devote an entire semester of classes solely to Shipka’s
kind of composing.
Obviously Shipka has put in a
lot of time, effort, and experimentation to develop her pedagogy. So I worry
that teachers forced to teach something they aren’t quite sure of or simply
don’t believe in would be unfair to the students. Perhaps teachers should be required
to experiment every now and then with this kind of assignment, but they
should never have to integrate it
into their classes. Shipka quotes Clyde Dow, who says teachers in our field
tend to trust what has been tested and proved when instead we should be saying,
“ ‘Let’s try it, and test it’ “ (25). If teachers are experimenting or trying non-alphabetic
projects in their classrooms, not only will they gain experience (and therefore
probably comfort) but they will also see the values and pitfalls, allowing them
to adopt and create their own pedagogies on the topic.
And perhaps that is one thing
that really turns me off about this book: it seems as if everything is perfect
in her classrooms and that all of her students are thoughtful, hard-working,
and end up with something brilliant. Where are the students that refuse to
learn anything and push back? Or the students that are unwilling to take risks?
Or the assignment that went horribly wrong?
Lastly, I have no qualms about this kind of work not being
rigorous enough for academic work. My own experience with these kinds of
projects helps me understand that they sometimes take much more planning, time,
creativity, and vision than when creating an alphabetic text. It is the
transfer of these skills to writing that I am not thoroughly convinced by, and
perhaps if Shipka had also focused on the improvement in writing that occurred
with her students—rather than just the amount of writing they did—I would feel
more inclined to support her idea of a “composition made whole.”
No comments:
Post a Comment