Using the comment function, talk about or paste in your maps in progress. See the assignment and example. Please post early so that you can look at each other's efforts on this project.
Assignment:
http://www.unm.edu/~sromano/english640/assign4.htm
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Maps
Posted by Susan Romano at 6:44 PM
Labels: article maps
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
1. Framing a question:
How has new media driven the development of the emerging church’s discourse community? Can I demonstrate a shift from old to new?
2. Introduction:
In the 80s, a trend began in which new or growing churches chose (or were forced) to meet in pre-existing, non-religious structures. Early on, this was likely a function of recession, but by the 90s it had become “cool” to hold church in a school cafeteria. The difficulty of setting up, tearing down, storing and transporting equipment and staging needs added an element of martyrdom to the process that was hard for postmodern believers to resist.
As the postmodern church began changing physically in relationship to the traditional church--for example, new churches choosing to eschew the traditional building in preference to rental properties--postmodern thinkers in the church chose to eschew the traditional modes of delivery for their new rhetoric. Many left the pulpit and quit seminary jobs, using online publication and the immediate delivery of these vehicles to promote their emerging theologies.
As the emerging church movement took hold, churches began springing up in coffee houses, bars, comic book stores and other unusual locations. Many churches disbanded altogether and starting holding yoga classes and meditations in their facilities, renting the church building out during the week to preschools and organizations looking for meeting locations. And the conversation continued online, with real life interactions within the movement invoking the virtual discourse.
I want to look at how the physical shift began to effect a shift in attitudes in the evangelical church toward empowering women, but the emerging church has led to gender stratification in ways we weren’t expecting--as a function of communication architectures of the internet.
What I don't have is a name or two to drop.
3. Methodology:
I think this will be mostly reliant on text and argument (Humanities research), however I may need to include a survey instrument of some sort to fill in some of the gaps in the scholarship.
4. This may actually be covered in #1 above. Sorry..I think I'm out of order! If not, what should I do here?
5. I'm having some trouble with the texts. I had found a few I thought would work before I reframed this in class on Thursday. Now I think I need to include some mention of one of the primary texts in the movement (a book I am very familiar with called "A Generous Orthodoxy") as well as some articles on composition. I have found one that may be useful by Pamela Takayoshi on "women's experience with electronic communication." I also found an article that may be slightly useful that deals with postmodern church organization, but I will have to go back to the drawing board a bit this week.
I looked through most of the conference presenters at Thomas R. Watson and didn't find anything in any of their publication lists that just jumped out at me. However, since that is my ultimate goal, I'd like to find SOMETHING! So I will return to that list and mine it a little farther.
6. This is as far as I have gotten. Ideas? Recommendations? Anything you are specifically interested in regarding this research/paper? I am open to all suggestions!
Two suggestions:
It may be helpful to continue thinking about your "news" in terms of "What counts as news to a rhetorician?" (which is not the same as what counts as news for you personally or some other group).
If you can target a specific journal for publication, even provisionally, then you can read the intros to see precisely what counts as news and how the space for it is carved from an ongoing conversation. Representing that conversation is very important--doesn't have to be long and probably should not be long. I felt that the Evans/Po went on a little too long after they announced what they were about (for example)
Another thing you might do is go back to the Anuradha group chart, keep adding key terms and topoi from the journals. Then make sure you're using these terms and topoi to advantage. If reviewers or editor do not recognize that you're adding to an ongoing conversation, they'll not be interested.
a) Some of the voices I will try to base the paper on are: Paul Kei Matsuda, Vivian Zamel, Ruth Spack, Bruce Horner, John Trimbur, Ryuko Kubota, and Jennifer Jenkins.
b) There is a conversation that is springing up around the problems with continuing to do what we do in most composition classes, in the wake of the enormous demographic changes sweeping through most American colleges and universities. I would like to join this conversation
c) I will try to find an anecdote from my experiences as a teacher/ administrator at CNM, and I hope this will connect to Matsuda’s idea of a division of labor that exists in early college writing.
d) How well does early college writing work (especially for multilingual writers)? What parts are working, and what parts are not working? If we can say certain things aren’t working, are these things likely to get worse with the influx of even more diversity? How can we respond? We can look at alternate models of delivery (stretch method/ Greg Glau/ ASU). We can look at new pedagogies that respond more directly to diversity. We can change the way new instructors are trained to include the idea of world Englishes (or some other term, but with a mind toward an inclusive, valuing attitude toward difference, and a turning away from a punitive attitude toward linguistic diversity).
e)
The students who make up composition classes in much of the country have reached a “tipping point”. Students are increasingly diverse in both the linguistic and cultural sense. There is a need to reconsider the pedagogy, delivery (meaning online versus face to face, full term versus shorter or longer term, etc.), and preparation of instructors who will teach, or who are teaching, composition classes for early college writers.
The article by Trimbur and Horner l83) lays out the historical map of how we got to a place in which monolingualism is prized over bilingualism. The article by Spack and Zammel explains the importance of all faculty across the disciplines helping students with language acquisition, and forwards the idea that instructors need to learn how to focus on differences in ways that do not see all difference as deficiency (144). In Matsuda’s article Basic Writing and Second Language Writers he explains the intersection in early college writing of ESL students and basic writers. Further, Matsuda suggests all college-writing instructors should be prepared to work with ESL students (83). I want to build on these ideas—which seem to be stressing the importance of faculty across the curriculum being able to work with ESL students and to value those learners—by brining in two other concepts. First, I will bring in the idea from Ryuko Kubota of “positive transfer”. Positive transfer basically refers to shifting a focus from half-empty to half-full in regard to linguistic diversity. Actually, it is a little more complicated, and something that I will have to research a bit, but I think it should be a central concept for any early college writing instructor working with ESL students. Then, I want to look again at Jennifer Jenkins’ idea from her book The Phonology of English as an International Language. I can’t seem to get this idea out of my head, and the thought that somehow her core of phonetic essentials could serve as a model or metaphor for a core of rhetorical (and maybe grammatical) essentials for written communication is the second part of my proposed adjustment to early college writing.
I. Methodology statement.
In the longer term I would like to do something that involves looking at student writing and analyzing it. I think I could learn a lot by comparing the writing of first and second language writers, particularly if I looked at something limited like contrasts in how introductions are written. For this paper, I think I will look at studies that have been done in similar contexts, and try to support some of the suggestions I want to make through a combination of my own experiences and the research that I include.
II. Theoretical framework.
There are a lot of things that might serve as a theoretical framework. Though I’ve been told it is out of fashion, I am very interested in contrastive rhetoric. I believe there is a lot to learn about working with second language writers by looking at the impact the first language makes on the second language. Even more interesting is the specific idea that patterns of thought may be somewhat determined by first language. It is somewhat difficult to talk about, because it can be perceived as racist if it is presented in the wrong way. Even the most famous article in the field by Robert Kaplan is still criticized as focusing on ethnic stereotypes. I believe it is still theoretical, since no one can really prove that thought patterns, and therefore writing patterns, are determined by one’s culture. But I really think, used in the right way, contrastive rhetoric can be valuable.
III. Your examples or texts.
Right now the texts are the Trimbur and Horner, the Matsuda, the Zamel and Spack, and then the Kubota, and the Jenkins. I think I will use the first three texts as background and won’t spend too much time analyzing them, but they will set everything up. Again, the Trimbur and Horner really lays out the history of how U.S. college composition got to a point in which monolingualism is valued over bilingualism. The Zamel and Spack provides ideas for teaching helping ESL students across the curriculum, and the Matsuda article discusses some of the problems that arise from separating ESL students from other college writers. After the foundation is in place I will use the Kubota and Jenkins to forward two ideas that could help instructors work with diverse groups in early college writing classes.
V. The points you make via your examples.
One point I want to make is that what is often perceived as error (probably for first and second language learners alike) is really an innovation, in which the writer is drawing on her own repertoire, which is unfamiliar to the instructor. Of course the problem is how to decide if something is just a mistake that detracts from the piece of writing or if something is an innovation that adds to the piece of writing. The idea is not to try to find things that aren’t there but to help second language writers find and draw on the strengths they bring to the writing task by virtue of being bilingual, rather than seeing their bilingualism as a hindrance only.
VI. There is a connection somewhere in this sort of paper to immigration. I don’t think I will go down that road now, but maybe in the future I could discuss the history of immigration. What I would look at would only be immigration in terms of how many time the U.S. has solved some sort of problem through immigrant labor. The difference now is the problem to be solved is not only physical labor, but high-tech science, technology, and medical jobs. What is likely to happen as baby boomers retire? Are members of the next generation gaining the skills to fill the empty positions? I’ve seen studies that show foreign born students are already overrepresented in the sciences, technology and medical fields. Will it become increasingly important to serve these students in college writing?
VII. I want my readers to feel a sense of urgency about serving linguistically diverse students in the most effective way. I would like to be cited by those teaching developmental writing, ESL, EFL, and composition. I hope I can provide a rational argument that either gives ideas to WPAs, chairs, or instructors, or provides ammunition for people to argue with their schools for changes in early college writing.
The approach (academic moves) I hope to take in working on an article (and an abstract for the Watson conference) are to suggest that 1) visual literacies/visual rhetoric is becoming increasingly important but 2) that our current approaches for the visual are inadequate. I then 3) hope to propose another possibility for imagining the visual.
In the introduction I will conduct a literature review citing prominent new media scholars (Wysocki, Kress and the New London Group, Hill, Johnson-Eiola, Selfe, Kostelnick, etc) to establish the context for new media studies as well as the vital role of the visual. I’ll also suggest that current approaches tend to focus on analyzing images but not necessarily producing images. I’ll then suggest one new possibility in which I hope to propose applying Aristotelian concepts of topos and enthymeme to constructing visual arguments and tie this into an assembly or constructivist approach (starting with pieces and building—-rather than applying a set of predefined principles) to creating images.
I still need to flush out this link between Aristotelian topos, enthymemic structure and creating images...but it occurred to me as I was reading Molly Bang’s ‘How Pictures Work,’ actually an art theory book—-Arnheim was a consultant—-which suggests several principles that attempt to explain our emotional response and reactions to pictures (many of her points are very similar to Kress’s argument for a ‘visual grammar’). Bang's dicussion of cultural associations with color, shape, perspectives, etc, struck me as not unlike an Aristotelian topos or ‘collection’ of commonplaces from which to draw from as places of invention (This would also certainly also apply to Robin Williams’ principles of graphic design). Bang also lists several invention exercises at the end of the book in which she suggests a piece-by-piece building approach to creating ‘pictures that work’ which was also reminiscent of Sirc’s ‘box logic.’
I'm fairly familiar with and steadily becoming more well versed in the scholarship in this field (this is NOT to suggest that I am not constantly learning--I still have a long way to go) but I think setting up the argument is something I am equipped to do. The biggest challenge, I think, will be arguing for the 'new possibility' for the visual in a way that is acceptable to joining the conversation.
My goal for the article is to help connect composition teachers to the media literacy of modern students and take advantage of the primary medium through which students access the world. Pedagogies inevitably lag behind technology, but the speed at which technology and media has changed in the past decade has created a chasm of difference between how students access and process information and how teachers approach analysis, rhetoric and composition studies.
I'd like to frame the introduction by briefly discussing the proliferation of information technology and its near-constant stream in student lives. I want to spend only a short time on that part of it, as that has become assumed knowledge. I am more interested in framing the argument along the lines of rhetorical comprehension of and processing of the media and helping students learn to filter the data stream. The first step of that is educating the instructors on the rhetoric of that datastream.
Most of the articles on the Internet and Technology focus on improving pedagogy practices in online courses and using technology to communicate to the students. Unfortunately, too many instructors lack a thorough understanding of the medium before attempting to employ it.
I am going to join and employ the voices of Catherine Finnegan, Neil Browne, Kari Freeman, Keith Anderson, James Trier and Moises Naim.
Methodology:
I plan to use statistics on usage and studies on student usage to build justification for the issue I am raising. I also plan to employ research and articles on rhetoric and Internet to help educate the audience on potential pedagogical elements to include in composition classes. Finally, I plan to include the experiences I've had ustilizing YouTube as a teaching tool AND a video essay tool to help students understand the rhetoric of what they are seeing by creating videos that utilize those rhetorical elements.
Theoretical Framwork:
It won't be surprising to most who know me that I plan to use Burke's Pentad and his theory of terministic screens to approach an understanding of the rhetoric of the Internet, or more specifically, the rhetoric of YouTube.
I've found some excellent texts this week to draw from. I'm not sure how much of my audience will recognize the specific names I'm using, but the research is sound and targeted specifically to my interest and plan. I'm still digging through it tonight and will have some sample information by classtime.
Working my way through these posts--and probably won't finish before this afternoon. But here's a response to Dylan-Tom:
--You're "working" your composition articles very well and in doing so situating yourself in an ongoing conversation.
--problem formation: you argue that demographic change is a causal factor that creates exigence--related to the urgency you want to instill in readers.
--I am least clear on the method part--so I'll just work my way through it here: your news is that there's much to be gained by looking at Kubota's theory of positive transfer, at the concept of international language, and at the relationship between error and innovation. All of these seem interesting to me. As a casual reader, I'd need to hear a lot about them--lots of explanation and you would then be my translator. I'm wondering whether you'd be bringing in examples from classroom practice (not entirely necessary--just wondering).
--am also wondering whether this is enough or whether you have to go on an make these 3 new lenses for ESL teaching practical for WPA-like people. I can see this as part of a much larger project (e.g., a dissertation or book) but maybe part of your job now is to narrow the project for purposes of a paper submission.
Now a go at Candice's:
Now take what you have here (your post)and have another go at the assignment again.
First, situate yourself in a very specific conversation--or build a "new" conversation from recognizable pieces: Use Bangs, Kress, and Sirc, for example--putting all three into conversation. Hocks work? This would be the alternative intro to the "we need to include visual in the retooling of comp plans" possiblity.
Your news would have something to do with constructivist approaches? Or is that already laid out in the Bangs? I realize right away that you need to use more text from these folks to help me (casual reader) understand what you have in mind.
Your news might be the promise to work through the topoi/enthymeme exercise on a couple of visuals. You could then let the diss objective (build visual into program) turn into an "implications" statement for this more detailed work.
If this makes no sense, don't worry about it. I can't "see" clearly enough the Bangs, Kress, Sirc connections--and my lack of seeing is good information for you--you know you have to make this more tranparent.
Keep thinking about what the heart of this paper is: I hear you saying that it's to explore how the topoi/enthymeme constructivist approach might work--and for the Watson proposal, you could hone this promise itself till it seemed sufficiently interesting even though you can't report yet on the results.
Greg--
I see a lot going on here--many possibilities--so one task to make some choices.
If you pursue in any sense the point that teachers will do well to attend to what students already know how to do, you'll want to refer to those who've already made this point--however briefly: Johnson-Eilola in his book Data Cloud, for example, has a short section on student use of instant messaging and his self correction of the initial impulse to shut it down during class. (He wound up finding that it enhanced his pedagogical goals.)
If you pursue the "need to filter" idea, you would reference Selber's Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, where he describes his method for doing so. (There's a review of Multiliteracies in the Computers and Composition issue we have in hand.)
I say this because these people are very very well known in the field you're going to publish in so their work can only help you if you say you're building on it. However the way you use them is really up to you--a mention, larger treatment?--all depends on where the heart of your argument is. Or possibly this is not a good frame for what you have to say.
Other possibilities: The article in CCC on comics and multimodal literacies, if I remember, has a good section arguing that people have always been multimodal, even comic book readers of the olden days. So a salient point or quote from this article might set up the "conversation" you want to have. Also, Powell's C&C article (in PDF) on Access is loaded with insightful analsyis about what students actually do--grounded in the idea of culture as supporter of literate behavior. It draws on a standard body of literature on literacy practices (Gee, Street, Brandt), so in any part of your dissertation work you're interested in literacy studies, Powell gives you a good rundown and some bibliography. Although Powell focuses on race and class, she does some really good close and nuanced reading of student commentary--worth taking a look at.
The authors of the articles you have in hand--Catherine Finnegan, Neil Browne, Kari Freeman, Keith Anderson, James Trier and Moises Naim--are unknowns to me, but this doesn't mean anything necessarily. But you and Tom have the same question in hand: are the arguments they present part of your "news"? (just as Tom has to decide whether international englishes, error/innovation, or positive transfer is the "news" for this particular community. And are you then the "translator" of this news for a readership that is unfamiliar with it, but interested? This is always a good way to go. If these authors themselves you want to join, and if they are not well known, you still need to have them join an ongoing conversation.
Burke framework is well known and hence another means of entering the conversation via a comfortable (to readers) door.
POssibly and maybe probalbly, your classroom experience is the place to start thinking about what claims you can or should make and how they raise broader questions leading you to further research and speculation. You have set out a 3-pronged methodology here--with the class example as final prong. As an "invention" activity, how about telling us what you can argue based on that classroom experience alone? Maybe that will narrow the project a bit.
Sarah,
Back to yours now.
What's missing here is a representation and engagement with the extant rhetoric/composition conversation on new media and discourse communities and this has to happen before you introduce your case study. You mention Takayoshi as a possiblity so maybe there's a good place to start. Pam Takayoshi is at Louisville, last time I looked, where the Watson is. Read her article, whichever one you have in hand. Joanna Wolfe, also at Louisville, does work on gender and technoloogy. I would search C&C abstracts (sciencedirect.com) for articles with the terms discourse community, gender, feminism, and new media in some combination or alone. You need to be hooked up very strongly to a rhetoric conversation before you launch your news.
1. Framing questions: How do the various generational groups remember Bharata Natyam (or other Indian dances) and how do the community/public memories overlap and diverge?
2. Introduction: The way an event/time period is remembered depends on many factors. Like Jacks points out in her article, that the white, male scientist version of how The Manhattan Project is remembered, a romanticized history, has become the public memory of that time. she goes onto point out that other marginalized groups, had different memories of the event. Similarly, the history of dance in India has also been remembered differently, specifically through the differet generations. It is common practice for second-generation East Indian Americans to participate in a South Indian dance or music class. Their first generation parents want their children to know and respect their Indian heritage and culture. The dance, especially Bharata Natyam, is seen as an effective way of relaying these traditions.
Before I start this, I would like to either start with a bit of a narrative to tie throughout the piece or quotes from each of the groups.
3. Methodology: Look at primary and secondary texts, especially written from the perspective of scholars/dancers views on 'community' memory of dance and derivation of identity from dance. Include personal anecdotes/ family history as well.
4. main texts: Amrit Srinivasan, Davesh Soneji for community memory. Medh Yodh for identity. (have to think about the others).
5. Ok. This is where I am stuck. But I'm sorting it out. what and what not to cover! Ech.
6. Want them to acknowledge the differences in perspective and how does that play into identity and dance education.
SARII is a good start and talking about perspectives in the dance class opens up the dialogue instead of assumptions and secrets or mis or no information about dance/dance history.
I. Introduction Paragraphs
a) To begin with, I’m hoping to join the conversations of David J. Fleming, Edward Corbett, Sharon Crowley, Debra Hawhee, Jacqueline Cossentino, and maybe Richard Lanham.
b)Classical rhetorical education is one of the oldest forms of education we have on record; in fact, since its inception around the fifth century BCE, it has continued to shape not only western educational theories, but western society as a whole. Unfortunately, our education system in the last several hundred years has moved away from classical rhetoric, and students’ skills have suffered for it, not just in writing, but across the curriculum.
c)When my daughter began attending a Montessori school last year, I knew nothing about Montessori except that well-educated, intelligent people whose opinions I respect believed Montessori to be a superior method of education for young children. When I had the opportunity to learn more about Montessori during a parents’ night orientation, I noticed some interesting parallels between the Montessori Method and the method of education used in classical rhetoric.
d, e, f) (need better transition) In the last 100 years, a new system of education has sprung up: the Montessori Method. Dr. Maria Montessori developed her method of education in direct response to the failure of the Italian public school system at the turn of the last century. The method has received considerable attention in the last 40 years, and has earned a reputation for excellence. Although the method is still not used in the mainstream of public education theory, Montessori schools can be found all over the world, and they are becoming more popular.
The Montessori Method rests on a foundation of theories that are very similar to those that serve the same function in the progymnasmata. These two well-respected, well-researched theories of pedagogy that were both built on “real objective observation” and “logical thought” (Montessori, 253-4), skillfully employ the techniques of imitation, exercise, and composition to guide students smoothly from one skill to another until they painlessly master larger concepts. Both of the above theories of pedagogy have been demonstrated to achieve great success in the classroom—the Montessori Method has been in use for 100 years and is gaining in popularity, and the progymnasmata were used for nearly 2,000 years, producing such literary giants as Shakespeare and Milton (quote source to back this up?). Perhaps it is time to reconsider those foundational techniques in the context of mainstream liberal education.
II. My method/methodology for this paper will be to use existing, well-respected scholarly sources to demonstrate:
a) that there is a clear connection between the Montessori Method and the progymnasmata
b) that both are built on a foundation of imitation, exercise, and composition
c)that both have achieved great success by using these techniques
d)that we should reconsider the use of these practices in the mainstream classroom
I may also use informal interviews and/or a survey to gain insight into the popularity of the Montessori Method among well-educated parents and teachers.
III. I’m not quite clear on this yet. I’m not sure a particular lens would be useful for this article—it’s pretty straight forward. I’m gathering evidence to build a case. Maybe that is a theoretical framework?
IV. Below is a discussion of the sources I’ve reviewed most thoroughly; however, I still have numerous sources to explore:
a) David J. Flemings, “The Very Idea of Progymnasmata”
Fleming’s primary argument is that the ideas behind the progymnasmata could be used to create a more effective language arts program than any of the more recent theories that are currently in practice, most of which have proved ineffective. The article provides a fairly thorough overview of, and modern take on the progymnasmata.
b) Jacqueline Cossentino’s, “Ritualizing Expertise: A Non-Montessorian View of the Montessori Method”
The purpose of this article is to make familiar the “alien,” often misunderstood, and very private world of the Montessori classroom. Cossentino also examines the positive role of ritual in the Montessori Method as a means of relating the method to theories that non-Montessorians will understand.
c) J. Cossentino’s, “Big Work: Goodness, Vocation, and Engagement in the Montessori Method”
In this article, Cossentino examines the rhetorical construct of the term work as it is used in the Montessori Method. Like ritual in the article above, work is a useful lens for exploring the theories and practices of a Montessori education. (64)
d) Laurent Pernot’s Rhetoric in Antiquity
This text provides, among other things, a very thorough overview of the progymnasmata. It's definitely a scholarly and well-respected text.
e)S. Crowley and D. Hawhee’s Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students
This is a modern composition textbook that contains a good overview of classical rhetoric, including information on the progymnasmata. However, this text is written for beginning composition students, not rhetoric scholars. Although it doesn’t contain the kind of scholarly work that can strengthen the argument in my paper, its existence is proof that some rhetoric scholars agree that classical rhetoric should be taught in the composition classroom, not just in history classes.
V. Given that my method rests on gathering evidence from these and other sources to support my thesis, I think the main points are clear. The progymnasmata are founded on imitation, exercise, and composition. The Montessori Method uses a very similar set of techniques—imitation, practice, and free work in the genre (also called ritual and work, depending on source). Both are/were very successful methods of providing a solid liberal education. Why aren’t we using these techniques in mainstream education today??
VI. I don’t think this one applies to my project.
VII. Rhetorical situation
a) What do I want readers to remember when they finish reading? I want them to make the connection between the two pedagogical methods and their related techniques; I want them to recognize the success of both methods, in large part because of their use of those techniques; and I want readers to start thinking about the use of those techniques in modern education.
b) How do I imagine I’ll get cited once I publish? By whom? What context?
I’ve been so busy trying to figure out how to get published that I haven’t given this much thought. I suppose people who are in a position to take action on this issue (parents, educators, administrators) might find a use for the article. It might be cited in educational articles or journals, or possibly used in presentations to school boards or in teaching classrooms. In a worst case scenario, it might be used to discredit a Montessori program or it might become a target for a more experienced scholar to pick apart and rebut.
Anuradha Kowtha
Framing/Mapping Activity
February 23, 2008
1.Journal: Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Audience: Interested in Rhetoric, don’t care specifically about dance, but how community memory is applied to other situations
Framing questions: How do the community and public memories overlap and diverge first and second generation diaspora groups remember Bharata Natyam?
2. Start with a personal narrative (to tie in later with the narrative I keep bringing up), 2 quotes, one from each generation that sums up their view/experience (Jacks uses this one), or 1 quote from a scholar that exemplifies the whole situation (Indian dance scholar?)
Introduction:
Explain the quotes why they are important. The two quotes show there are generational differences in community memory of dance. Collective memory of dance in first and second south Indian diaspora varies: first generation parents/current dance teachers in U.S. grew up in a time of Indian nationalism, when India was claiming/forging a national identity. In terms of dance, the Anti Devadasi law was passed, Indian dance/bharata natyam were in full-swing revival and being promoted as iconic/classical dances of India. Some negative ideas of dancers/devadasis remained but the dance itself was seen as iconic. Their second-generation students/children, raised in America (or Canada), are far removed from India, trying to form a hyphenated identity, receive only stories from their parents/teachers and see the dance as only classical. Basically that each group sees the community memory as different and they are both different from the view of Bharata natyam history that is presented by scholars.
Here I would like to connect community memory to rhetoric, by making the connection that education is a form of transmission of community memory as well as a rhetorical action. Not only does the dance class/teacher teach the techne of dance- as in the movements and gestures, but also the history and theory from the culture it originated from. Not sure how to back this up or if it is necessary but I would like to take this step.
Here, I will bring in Jack. Discuss how she looked at the groups in and around LANL at the time of the Manhattan Project through the lens of time and space. In Wartime Los Alamos,” Jordynn Jack examines public memory of wartime Los Alamos in through a temporal, spatial, and gendered appeals. Also, use her definitions of space/time, as well as community memory and the framework for how we construct it. The framework is dictated by the dominant group, what is ok and not ok to remember or forget. This frame work is put onto an event, while the event is happening, and becomes community memory—instead of being placed on an event after the fact or by trying to fill a gap in memory.
I will use Shah to talk about how dance was remembered during the independence movement and after. Also, Srinivasan to talk about the life of a devadasi (how to resolve the distance between devadasis classification as a nun or prostitute). And finally, look at Soneji to talk about how community memory affects the regionalism lost by the revival movement.
Next I want to talk about how this community memory is disseminated through the generations. For the parents, it is the memory, media, movies, speeches, the iconic image of Rukmini Devi and the popularity of the dance in and outside of India etc. after independence. For their children it is through a dance class. It is common practice for second-generation East Indian Americans to participate in a South Indian dance or music class. Their first generation parents want their children to know and respect their Indian heritage and culture. The dance, especially Bharata Natyam, is seen as an effective way of relaying these traditions. Even though the practice of teaching second-generation East Indian-Americans about their culture through dance is valid, it is incomplete because the myth of a ‘universal’ history: male-written, male-dominated, and Euro-centric model of dance history has persisted. Here I will use Medh Yodh and Ketu Katrak to talk about identity through dance/in diaspora and how dance class/teacher/parent combine to transmit community memory to 2nd generation diaspora.
Next, I want to discuss what expectations each group brings to the dance education. First generation parents want their kids to learn about their culture, religion, myths, tradition, gender roles, etc. while second generation students see it as a way to share culture (food, friends, etc.) as another extra-curricular activity, and formation of mixed identity. Begin to show that each generation’s community memory is different, because of space and time.
This is where I want to put my thesis, that I will examine the aspect of community memory particularly the ways culture is enacted and re-enacted through the dance tradition. In the context of East Indian diaspora and the cultural education of their children, we might wonder how community has remembered the history of Bharata Natyam, is that an ‘authentic’ representation, who is affected by the lack of ‘authenticity.’
3. Methodology: Look at primary and secondary texts, especially written from the perspective of scholars/dancers views on 'community' memory of dance and derivation of identity from dance. Refer back to Jack.
Data:
*Include personal anecdotes about dance teachers and stories from my parents, their families: brothers, sisters, parents, etc. More in depth about their memory of history.
*Anecdotes from students/teachers. More in depth about their memory of history.
*Ketu Katrak, Jean Cunningham about dance schools, parents’ expectations, and student’s understanding of their culture/identity.
*Uttara Coorlawalla, Davesh Soneji, Purnima Shah, and Amrit Srinivasan, more in depth about the ‘authentic’ history.
I want the take away message for the readers to acknowledge the differences in perspectives of community memory through space and time (1st and 2nd generation diaspora) and how does that play into formation of Indian identity as dance education as a means of transmission. Also, that organizations like SARII is a good start and talking about perspectives in the dance class opens up the dialogue instead of assumptions and secrets or mis or no information about dance/dance history.
I'm not sure if this belongs in the Maps section or the research section, it sort of overlaps.
I'm looking at the conversations that I'm pulling together from outside the Computers and Communications audience. My goal is to link two different areas of study: the use of new media as a teaching tool, and the effects of Participatory Media on youth culture.
I still have some reading to do this week to incorporate the main voices of the existing pedagogy theories, but here is a brief Lit Review that I'll draw on to build the article:
Noam Chomsky: I'd like to incorporate Chomsky's discussions about corporate-owned media and its dangers for deliberative democracy. I think it's important as a catalyst for the emergence of participatory media. But I'm not sure it fits in the scope of this article. It is probably its own article.
Guy Dubord: Dubord wrote a novel in 1967 called The Society of the Spectable in which he predicts a worldwide audience focused on corporate controlled media carefully designed to keep us from learning the truth, and willing to watch whatever is put in front of us. It's a remarkably accurate prediction of our current system. Does participatry media undercut or contribute to the spectacle? Perhaps both. I think it's a good lead in to the rest of the article at least.
Andy Warhol: Of course, there is Andy Warhol's prediction that everyone gets 15 minutes of fame, and participatory media certainly confirms that vision, but I don't really think it adds to this argument as much as it distracts.
Those are the general knowledge elements, here are a few of the articles:
(DigiRhet.org) Teaching Digital Rhetoric: Community, Critical Engagement, and Application. This is a publication by DigiRhet.org that includes a number of contributors. It's based on a Digital Rhetoric course taught at Michigan State in 2004. The publication addresses two key questions: What is Digital Rhetoric? and How do reading and writing practices change in digital environments? I'll use some of the finiding from the research in this report to justify the inclusion of participatory media in Freshman Writing Programs.
Brown, M. Neill with Kari Freeman and Carrie Williamson. The Importance of Critical Thinking for Student Use of the Internet . This article examines the "absorption of postsecondary students with the Internet as a source of knowledge." It looks at how willing students are to accept Internet based information as factual without the skills to determine credibility. I'll use the findings of this articl in my discussion of the need for new media rhetoric discussions.
Finnegan, Catherine L. Technology: Revolutionizing or Transforming College. This is a short article on the uses of technology in college classrooms. It's effective background information.
Madden, Mary. Internet Penetration and Impact. April 2006. This is strictly research data on Internet usage among various age and cultural groups.
Naim, Moises. The YouTube Effect. This is an article about how YouTube has been an effective instrument as a force for social and political change. It includes example of how individuals are circumventing corporate-owned and/or government controlled media to provide news. It relates directly to the Chomsky/Dubord arguments in that it demonstrates the potential for participatory media. It will be helpful for justifying the need to teach participatory media rhetoric and practice in composition classes.
Trier, James. "Cool" Engagements with YouTube. This article actually appears in two parts. This article discusses the interaction that the public, and particularly teenagers, have with YouTube and other participatory media sites. It includes several examples that will be helpful in presenting my argument.
I'll be adding additional texts from the pedagogy side of this argument, particularly those discussions already taking place in the Computers and Composition journal where I'm targeting this article.
Loyola's 1st Map Version:
A. I have researched works by the following field experts/scholars who share an interest in the study of American Indians in the academy:
a. Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale, Professor at Northern Arizona University, who has a huge interest in Basic Writing studies,
b. Professor Malea Powell, whose interests include Indigenous peoples and Rhet/Comp,
c. Scott Lyons, Professor at Syracuse University with very similar interests as Powell’s, and pieces by
d. Jacqueline Royster, Ohio State University, whose interests rhetorical history and African American women, literacy, and writing pedagogy;
e. A literacy narrative, written by a young man, Iswari P. Pandey, from Nepal on digital literacies.
f. I will incorporate pieces of my own written contributions on composition and basic writing studies and American Indian students, more specifically, my secondary teaching experiences on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
g. I think there is still room/time to examine other experts in the field, i.e. Bruce Horner, Deborah Mutnik, Victor Villaneuva. (We’ll see).
B. The above mentioned individuals continue to participate in on-going conversations concerning American Indian students, with respect to their histories, identities, educational experiences, and many other areas which present important, and often times overlooked contributions to our views and perceptions on the writing and pedagogical practices that take place in the academy. This does not eliminate some conversations which involve American Indian students and the secondary experience. Many studies have been conducted using African American, Asian, Mexican American and other ESL students as examples which present important and significant contributions in the research of composition studies. But rarely do we have the opportunity to learn from what American Indian students have to offer through their personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, educational histories, language and literacy backgrounds, and more, all of which they bring with them to the classroom. There is much to consider to positively alter common misperceptions of these marginalized/labeled students in the academy. In the past, I have joined this conversation with respect to my own experiences being tracked in a university setting, and later, my experiences teaching Jicarilla Apache students in the secondary setting.
C. Questions to consider in an effort to narrow down the article’s focus:
**Key Question - How do American Indian students claim their own “space” in an academic setting? This is what my article will focus on.
1) Why do American Indian students continue to struggle in the academy when it comes to writing? How can we as educators ensure that these students are ensured a space which enables them to actively contribute without the fears associated with being categorized as students in the margin? In all honesty, these questions also contain great potential for this article. I can relate my own experiences in working with native students and how our individual and shared experiences in the classroom provide the critical backdrop for articulating and identifying those factor which contribute to success or failure in academic studies beyond secondary. At this point, I am more interested in sharing the atmosphere and student contributions in a social and cultural context in the classroom than going in-depth into suggested pedagogical practices.
2) How are Tribal student identities altered through their secondary and/or basic writing experiences in the academy?
3) How do those involved in Indian education whether it be teaching, administrative, or otherwise, continue to strive for educational equality and proven, practical pedagogies in order to move AI students beyond that crucial “gorge” between failure and success?
D. Reflections of my secondary teaching experiences will serve as the main basis for this article with support by above mentioned field experts/scholars in the area of composition studies and American Indian students.
E. Blurbs about my readings:
The article “Rhetorics of Survivance: How American Indians Use Writing,” written by Malea Powell offers her research on two well-known Indian intellectuals, Sara Winnemucca and Charles Eastman and their “use” of writing and this contributes to the discourses that they found themselves immersed in at various points in their lives. She brings light to several important issues regarding Natives and writing. Firstly, that there still exists a hole in C/R studies when it comes to Natives. She also incorporates the use of story and a couple of well-known storytellers, Silko and Momaday, with Momaday’s telling of “imagining” (we are what we imagine ourselves to be) and with Eastman and Winnemucca, it becomes a “reimagining” of what natives and their written contributions stand for. I feel that this article is very important in relaying the important history of how rhetoric began in this country, but more so how Natives learned to develop their own source of rhetoric in terms of “rhetorics of survivance,” which stands for “survival + resistance.”
I also zoomed in on Scott Lyon’s article, “Rhetorical Soveriegnty: What Do American Indians Want from Writing?” which was written in 2000. He spends a large part of the article explaining what sovereignty means in the world of American Indians and how in the 21st century, we as Natives are still trying to maintain that sovereignty. He moves onto what Natives don’t want from writing: “stereotypes, cultural appropriation, exclusion, ignorance, irrelevance, rhetorical imperialism” (462). He stresses that Natives want rhetorical sovereignty which would enable all Native people to “determine their own communicative needs and desires in the pursuit of self-determination...” (462). He goes on to talk about places and documents which present this rhetorical sovereignty. Finally, he suggests that as educators, we should be “teaching the treaties and federal Indian laws as rhetorical texts themselves, situating our work within both historical and contemporary contexts” (464). Prioritizing of American Indian rhetoric needs to take place in graduate programs, writing programs. “No student should encounter a Native American text without having learned something about Indian peoples’ historical and ongoing struggles for sovereignty , and teachers of Native students in particular should create a space for those kinds of discussions” (465). This is something that I totally agree with and have practiced in teaching native students. I think for purposes of my article, this last statement is truly significant in telling my experiences in the classroom full of native students.
I also looked at an article written by Jacqueline Royster, which discusses projects and finally a program she helped set up for African American students (women) in which it would help them to claim “space” as intellectuals (214). This program engaged a variety of activities to help these women claim their space. A basic strategy was the use of dialogue. Students were to consider how the understanding of power affects them (219). Participating in a community as an active observer and/or participant allows for accountability “with whom and about whom we speak” (224). In essence, Royster establishes that “African American women intellectuals are charged with creating bridges from which to speak and interpret, as compared with the bridges by which African American women in general have envisioned the world and operated within in it” (225). There appears to be some very distinct correlations between what Royster claims in her studies of African American women and what I have observed with my own people. I would like to build on what she offers in this article.
Another article I read was written by a Ph.D. student who is studying in the U.S., but is originally from Nepal. He presents his piece as a literacy narrative and explains how the questionable political history of his country affected his own experiences with education growing up and how later the introduction of computers in his country affected his future educational experiences. He establishes that the “first hand accounts of students’ literacy narratives may be good pedagogical tools to understand and respond to diverse students/writers in more informed ways, as such narratives present unique contexts and histories of individual literacy practices” (256). I totally agree and recall that while doing my MA work, a Professor asked me if I realized that when I wrote it was in most cases in narrative form.
Lastly, I will include references to the work done by Dr. Laura Gray-Rosendale, a Professor and distinguished scholar in composition studies. She has written much on basic writing studies and we co-wrote a piece on the same topic as well.
Through my teaching experiences with Jicarilla Apache students, I will elaborate on what American Indian students bring with them to the academy, with specific emphasis on pedagogical practices in the writing process, accompanied often times with needed emphasis on life-building skills.
I. Methodology Statement
I have begun to further examine how writing issues, whether it be associated with basic writing, historical in nature, or in a present-day university setting, have affected perceptions of American Indians and/or students. With an emphasis on my own experiences in a majority “native” classroom, I will bring those social and cultural aspects which contribute to these perceptions (of my former students) to light.
II. Theoretical Framework:
Because I am an American Indian woman (Jicarilla Apache) who has had first-hand experience teaching writing to Jicarilla students, I believe that this experience provides the framework for further examination/speculation in these students’ writing experiences with emphasis in a cultural and social context. By providing actual student perceptions about writing, tribal identity, community, culture, family history/structure, etc. these individual perceptions will bring a much needed “voice” to the field of composition studies.
III. Examples or Texts
IV. Points I Make Via Examples
1) A major point would be that yes, American Indian students are “different.” But despite the many facets of character presence (identity) that they bring with them, they have much to contribute to our society, to American Indian people, and to themselves (perhaps in reverse order). Educators who work with these students must consider the cultural, social, and historical characteristics which these students possess.
V. Expectations for Audience
This particular journal reach a wide and diverse audience, academic and professional. I was pleased to see Scott Lyon’s article on American Indian sovereignty published in this journal, which reflects a move toward a diversity that includes the representation of an often neglected voice in the academy, that of the American Indian. I would hope that those who work specifically with “native” students would appreciate my piece.
This is a significantly updated version of my map:
Introduction Paragraphs
a) I think I have finally settled on a plan that involves responding directly to the conversation of J. David Fleming, but putting his ideas into conversation with numerous other scholars including Carolyn Miller, Edward P.J. Corbett, Michael Leff, Gregory Clark, S. Michael Halloran, Frank J. D’Angelo, Richard Lanham, Jacqueline Cossentino, and Maria Montessori. Other citations of note include George Kennedy, Laurent Pernot, Kenneth Burke, Richard Weaver, and Henri Marrou.
b) Numerous attempts have been made to reintroduce elements of the progymnasmata into contemporary writing instruction, but these have been mostly unsuccessful. Current/recent methods of writing instruction (which Fleming class process, product, and WAC) have also been unsuccessful, so we need to consider an alternative.
Part of the problem with the use of classical rhetorical methods in current pedagogy is our move away from a communal society that treated language arts curriculum as a means for indoctrinating students into the ideals of the culture. Our move toward a professional society that values the individual above community means that we are uncomfortable with the goal of classical rhetorical education—to create Quintillian’s “good man speaking well.”
However, our emphasis on individualism has created a culture artificially based on the value of “pure logic.” Since this ideal is nearly impossible to achieve, arguments frequently result in an impasse, the result of which is a further disintegration of a sense of shared cultural values.
It would be naive to think that by changing our pedagogical focus, we could easily return to a more communal culture that values civic virtue. Proposing a radical change in pedagogy that strays too far from the realities of what can be accomplished is not useful; however, we need to at least articulate and consider alternatives to our current methods so that we can keep moving forward. In that vein, the ideas behind the progymnasmata exercises that formed the basis of classical rhetorical education can serve as a useful framework upon which to design a contemporary curriculum that works to bridge the gap between the current academy and the public realm.
c) Have decided to remove…not needed…
d) In this article, I will further J. David Fleming’s analysis of the usefulness of classical rhetoric in contemporary writing instruction by expanding the discussion of the five ideas he extracts from the progymnasmata exercises. I will use examples from the work of other rhetoric scholars as well as a demonstration of the effectiveness of these ideas as they are used in the Montessori Method to argue that Fleming’s revelation warrants further consideration.
e) Our privileging of the individual in modern professional culture is widening the gap between the academe and the public arena—I think most scholars already know this; however, my news is that the ideas that Fleming highlights in the progymnasmata, along with suggestions from numerous other scholars, including Maria Montessori, might provide a means to reconnect pedagogical institutions with the “real world” without surrendering to the demands of professionalization.
f) I’m going to expand on the five useful ideas that Fleming extracts from the progymnasmata by bringing in support for each idea from the works of other scholars. I’m also going to show how the Montessori Method puts some or all of those ideas into practice early in the educational process.
II. My method/methodology for this paper will be to do close readings of existing, well-respected scholarly sources to demonstrate:
a. that our current cultural climate is uncomfortable with the idea of pedagogy as a means of instilling students with a sense of civic virtue because we value the individual over community
b. that our privileging of the individual in our contemporary professional culture is widening the gap between the academe and the public arena
c. that the ideas Fleming pulls from the progymnasmata, supported by other scholarship (including the Montessori Method), can offer a new direction toward a liberal arts pedagogy that values community without sacrificing individualism
d. that we need to continue this conversation with a view toward improving the relationship between pedagogy and the public realm (which we hope will lead to an increase in the value of civic virtue in our culture)
III. I think the theoretical framework I’m using could be described as prophetic pragmatism (ala Cornel West and Richard Rorty) without the religious overtones. I’m writing through an interpretive lens that values the classical rhetorical ideals of deliberative democracy and civic virtue but seeks to avoid the exclusionary practices of those ideals as they were used in the classical and neo-classical eras.
IV. Below is a discussion of the sources I’ve reviewed most thoroughly; however, I still have numerous sources to explore:
a. J. David Fleming, “The Very Idea of Progymnasmata”
The primary purpose of Fleming’s article, published in Rhetoric Review, is to present a scholarly exploration of an educational theory rather than to suggest a practical curriculum. Its primary audience is highly educated scholars who are most likely already interested in classical rhetoric and education theory. Fleming’s primary argument is that the ideas behind the progymnasmata could be used to create a more effective language arts program than any of the more recent theories that are currently in practice, most of which have proved ineffective. The article provides a fairly thorough overview of, and modern take on the progymnasmata.
b. J. David Fleming, “Rhetoric as a Course of Study”
In this article, Fleming describes three definitions of rhetoric: anthropological, which denotes rhetoric as a universal and inescapable human feature; technological, which relegates rhetoric to a manageable skill that harnesses the power of speech and makes discourse conscious of itself, a specific strategy for achieving a goal; and paideutic, which elevates rhetoric to a deep-rooted and practical knowledge or inherently virtuous skill. Fleming argues that the third definition is the best use of the word.
c. Gregory Clark and S. Michael Halloran, “Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric”
This article serves as the introduction to a collection of articles about the topic described in the title. The article provides an overview of the transformation in the theory and practice of rhetoric in America that resulted from the move from a culture that privileged community over the individual to a culture that now privileges the individual over community and professionalism over liberal education.
d. Cornel West, The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism
This book provides a history of pragmatism, the “American Religion,” starting with its pre-emergence in the work of Emerson and its development through the work of Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and John Dewey. West describes pragmatism as an American response to and rejection of Euro-centric, epistemologically-based philosophy. The book describes several other figures who transformed the ideals of pragmatism, caused its decline, and salvaged its ideals first as neo-pragmatism and later as prophetic pragmatism.
e. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics
I haven’t had time to read this yet, but I’ve printed it out and hope to read it and use it to inform my next iteration of the article.
f. Carolyn R. Miller, “Aristotle’s “Special Topics” in Rhetorical Practice and Pedagogy”
This article describes the split between primary or materialistic rhetoric and secondary or inferential rhetoric. Miller goes through a history of the divide and subsequent demise of rhetoric in public discourse, and eventually suggests having students conduct rhetorical criticism involving observation and translation of contemporary public discourse as a means of bridging the gap between pedagogy and practice in rhetoric.
g. Edward P.J. Corbett, “The Theory and Practice of Imitation in Classical Rhetoric”
Corbett’s article provides a thorough discussion of the use of imitation, or emulation, in numerous exercises and pedagogical practices starting with classical Greek and Roman rhetorical education. He first describes imitatio as the first of three parts of practice in the progymnasmata. Next, he argues that what really happens at that stage is emulatio, or emulation.
Following his initial argument, Corbett leads us through a series of examples of the use of imitation or emulation in everything from language development, to playing an instrument, to memorization of select passages of text, to double translation. He uses examples from contemporary practice, from classical scholars like Quintillion and Erasmus, from renaissance educational methods, from St. Paul’s school (where Milton studied), from well-known historical figures like Benjamin Franklin and Robert Louis Stevenson. Corbett’s final point is that imitation/emulation is the means by which we internalize structures.
h. Jacqueline Cossentino’s, “Ritualizing Expertise: A Non-Montessorian View of the Montessori Method”
The purpose of this article is to make familiar the “alien,” often misunderstood, and very private world of the Montessori classroom. Cossentino also examines the positive role of ritual in the Montessori Method as a means of relating the method to theories that non-Montessorians will understand. Her argument in this article is three-pronged: first is that the consistent language and behavior that is so characteristic of Montessori education makes it an “exemplar of a particular type of ‘coherent’ (Elmore 2002; Newmann et al. 2001) practice.” Second is that both the action and worldview of Montessori practice can best be understood as “cultural activity.” And third is that the routines and rituals that are so central to Montessori teaching are governed by scripts that are encoded in the method. (213)
i. J. Cossentino’s, “Big Work: Goodness, Vocation, and Engagement in the Montessori Method”
In this article, Cossentino examines the rhetorical construct of the term work as it is used in the Montessori Method. This article, published in a journal called Curriculum Inquiry, seems to be written for an audience of well-educated teachers and school administrators who have at least some interest in education reform. The author’s primary argument is:
...that Montessori’s conception of work substantially revises prevailing assumptions about the nature of childhood, the roles of teachers, and the purpose of schooling. In this way, Montessori rhetoric and practice serve as an existence proof of an alternative educational worldview. (63)
Although Cossentino refers repeatedly to education reform in her analysis of work in the Montessori sense, the article is academic; its aim is to explore the idea rather than to suggest a particular course of action.
Cossentino begins her article with an anecdote that explains her first encounter with (and resistance to) the term work when her son began Montessori school. Because Maria Montessori placed “deliberate and emphatic emphasis on the concept of work [...] as the means as well as the end of Montessori education,” Cossentino explains that she eventually came to see that, like ritual in the previous article, work is a useful lens for exploring the theories and practices of a Montessori education. (64)
j. Laurent Pernot’s Rhetoric in Antiquity
I pulled a thorough description of the progymnasmata from this text and used it to fill out the section on the history of… in my article
k. S. Crowley and D. Hawhee’s Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students
This is a modern composition textbook that contains a good overview of classical rhetoric, including information on the progymnasmata. It suggests modern adaptations of some of the exercises. However, this text is written for beginning composition students, not rhetoric scholars. Although it doesn’t contain the kind of scholarly work that can strengthen the argument in my paper, its existence is proof that some rhetoric scholars agree that classical rhetoric should be taught in the composition classroom, not just in history classes.
V. Fleming’s progymnasmata provides the structure for my paper—I use his article to introduce the idea that we are uncomfortable with goodness as a goal of pedagogy and I elaborate on his five ideas from the progymnasmata in order to continue his conversation. I use Fleming’s rhetoric article mainly as a reference to improve my understanding of rhetoric as pedagogy.
The Clark and Halloran article provides information on the split between community values and individualism that changed the way rhetoric is taught. The Cornel West book provides information on prophetic pragmatism that I am using as a theoretical framework. I don’t know what I’ll do with the Nichomachean Ethics yet, but I imagine it will add to my understanding of the theoretical framework.
The remainder of the articles I referenced above are used to support the five ideas for liberal arts pedagogy that I’m using from Fleming.
VI. I can’t think of anything right now.
VII. Rhetorical situation
a. What do I want readers to remember when they finish reading? I want readers to overcome their fear of “goodness” as a goal of education by understanding why we fear it in contemporary American culture and how we can get over that fear and use it as a tool to improve our culture without sacrificing individuality or returning to an exclusionary political/economic system.
b. How do I imagine I’ll get cited once I publish? By whom? What context?
My article might be cited by those who seek to continue the conversation: rhetoric/composition scholars, perhaps educational theorists in other liberal arts/humanities fields (history, philosophy/pragmatism, political science, literature). Besides those seeking to continue the conversation, the article might be cited by those seeking to challenge or criticize the ideas in it.
Post a Comment