The WAC Journal issue 18 is available on line, on the home page. You can download the entire volume at once or selectively. It looks like past issues are readily available too, for browsing.
http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/
Friday, February 1, 2008
WAC Journal
Posted by Susan Romano at 9:29 AM
Labels: WAC Journal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I. WAC Journal (Volume 18)
a) The journal feels comfortable to me because it is familiar. It is an area I have a lot of interest in. I like the way most of the articles seem to be free of pretense. They are, at least to me, academic but in a more technical way than some of the journals form last week (particularly CCC). The language does not seem flowery; it is language that is meant to communicate clearly and economically.
b) The first article (these articles are fairly long) discusses the possibilities for “enlivening” WAC programs, which suggests some problems in the WAC field.
c) The next article looks at the possibility of using personal narrative, which the author argues is accepted in the humanities but not beyond the humanities.
d) An author who is an academic writing advisor to students in an Australian university discusses ways that writers can play with the constraints of genre when writing formal academic papers, such as theses.
e) I focused most of my attention on the interview with Terry Meyers Zawaki. I liked this because I often feel like there is no road map for the kind of career I have been attempting to build. It is very interesting to hear someone talk about her career when it is one that includes many areas I am considering pursuing. Now that I have just stepped into an administrative role, I envision that this may be, if not the majority of what I do, a significant part of what I do from now on. The interdisciplinary nature of the work described by Zawaki is also very interesting, and the way she mentions over and over again her enjoyment of the people she works with (I don’t think she uses the word camaraderie, but that is what I was thinking).
f) In the book review of Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts the author begins with the familiar parlor story from Kenneth Burke, and I think this is the sort of move we discussed in class the other night, in which an author gives us something very familiar and just changes the spin on it slightly. I like reading something like that. It makes me feel part of the group. “I know this!”
The first article seems to jump fairly quickly into the statement of problem (‘once started, WAC initiatives can’t entirely be left to their own devices; like any other program, they need to be evaluated’). The authors then evaluate their own WAC program looking at components like course design, faculty development and overall assessment. They explain ‘what we’re doing’ in detail as well as future plans—‘where we think we need to go.’
WAC is a decentralized initiative so I think it’s easier and far safer (here I go again!) to critique. WAC is novel (completely nontraditional) so to me there was this sense that there’s ONLY room for improvement—any and all successes as well as failures are useful. The range of topics open for critique also seems more open-ended (I can’t imagine we’d see an in depth assessment of a FYC program in CE or CCC unless the authors were trying to pitch it as a 'model' program).
The other thing that really struck me was the empirical research methodology as well as the way this methodology was used. They outlined their methods in detail, but then provided virtually no results! They just explained how they used the results (which are generalized) to make changes to their program. So it struck me that maybe this is more a of ‘methods’ paper? This approach exists in scientific fields where authors just explain and evaluate their methodology…but this paper isn’t about ‘how useful/valid are our methods’; the structure of this paper is more: ‘WAC initiatives can always use improvement. We evaluated our initiative. Here’s how we did it, and here are the changes we made or are in the process of making.’ But there’s virtually no info on what they actually found about their program—just what they perceived to be problems. (so—maybe I am on to something with perceived ‘risk'!)
In contrast with journals like CCC and CE, the content here is also more practical and less grounded in theory (...because 'WAC' theory is still being developed? or there isn't widescale agreement? ...or because a WAC theory needs to be interdisciplinary but it’s dominated (true?) by humanities people?)
The WAC journal also gives a feel for how different disciplines do things. The author in ‘teaching lore’ points out that we assume disciplinary variation in writing but uniformity in “talking about teaching writing.” Here I’m going off on a short, ‘teacher lore’ content-based tangent: Last fall in my FLC, a student used an example from a ‘self-help’ book to back up an argument. I told the student that it wasn’t a ‘valid source’ while my partner (who taught Soc 101) told her it was a bad example. Either way the student got essentially the same message—you can’t use this source—but what surprised me was how different our reasoning was on something that I thought was pretty clear cut.
“Helping Thesis Writers to Think about Genre” (Chanock)
This is an amazing find. Here we have an Australian writer who does not work in a WAC program yet who recognizes the implications of what she does (provide campus-wide seminars on thesis writing to members of diverse disciplines) for US-based WAC, specifically in the area of genre work. She nests her work within an alien environment by . . . [we’ll look at how she does this.] So we have the opportunity to observe her moves, even as we attend to her advice about how to observe other writerly moves!
There are some really interesting ideas toward the end of this piece that excite me and that I find relevant to the work you’re undertaking. If the ante-penultimate sentence offers an utterly concise vision of what you must accomplish, other sections offer advice about how to go about this accomplishing. Chanock spent quite a bit of time on the tension between template writing and creativity—so I’ll be interested in hearing whether this seems like a problem for you or whether you’re still trying to get a bead on genre conventions before breaking away from them. For immediate reasons (grad students writing abstracts and asking for advice), I was quite enamoured by the discussion of how to position “research” or “thesis” or some other abstraction (e.g., “discourse”) as grammatical subject without sacrificing what we now see as an ethical move: “we have met the researcher and it is I.”
"Helping Thesis Writers to Think About Genre": The way Chanock positions herself in this work seems very "WAC-like." She makes some realistic assertions in his writing. For example, in her discussion of the thesis workshops he holds, Chanock offers: "The session I offer does not aim to tell students how they should write their theses. It would be impossible to be prescriptive, or even descriptive, in the wide range of disciplines encompassed in my Faculty" (32). Instead, he encourages writers to familiarize themselves with the conventions of their discourse communities, and to consider whether breaking from conventions is acceptable or even welcomed within a given discipline. When a writer chooses to break with convention, Chanock argues, he or she should do so consciously, and this break should serve a particular purpose that the writer is aware of. I found it interesting that after Chanock's entire discussion of convention versus innovation, she suggests that he is not privileging one mode of self-presentation over another.
Chanock's suggestions for students entering a discipline-specific conversation parallels the work we are doing with this class. By studying a range of different sources, we are learning the conventions, and what moves are considered "risky" within the field. And when Charlton advises writers to examine the conventions of a discipline, I think that can be expanded to include sub-conventions. As we're discovering, different journals within the large, encompassing field of composition and rhetoric studies, there are conventions specific to each journal. Navigating the world of academic publishing and presenting is complicated, and it is of value for us to hone our ability to perform a rhetorical analysis of the venue and academic conversation we wish to enter.
I must admit that I don't take many "risks" in my academic writing. I got into a discussion with a classmate not long ago about this topic. She argued that academic writing is stifling and virtually eliminates creativity and personal voice. I took the contrasting stance: that I find the ability to share my ideas in writing, in the hopes of joining a conversation and having others weigh in too, to be exciting. Sharing ideas and becoming a part of the conversation for me is an act of "creation," and I don't feel like my voice or creativity are stifled. In light of this conversation, I appreciated the stance Chanock takes: that in choosing to write 'impersonally,' "a student can show an appreciation of the shared goals of a discipline community" (38). This assertion also raises some interesting questions: do experts get more leeway in breaking with convention than novices? Does it come down to a spirit of cooperation? I noticed that a few times throughout the WAC Journal, authors suggested that WAC faculty are more cooperative than those of other disciplines, working for "the greater good" of academic pursuits. I consider myself a cooperative scholar interested in the greater conversation, and I consider myself collaborative, as well as a believer in WAC, but I'm not sure if these factors are all related. It seems pretty bold to suggest that one field is more cooperative and collaborative than another, but perhaps I'm just not comfortable making such broad assertions.
I liked this journal because of the focus on methodology and practicality in the WAC programs, but I agree with Candice in that I'd like to see more results of the research itself rather than just implementation. It is similar to the Writing Center journal in it's approach to practical applicability in teaching, however, the WAC journal seems more focused on pedagogy methodology where the Writing Center Journal seems to focus more on student issues.
I'm not sure where I should post this--maybe in my reading journal--but I'm going to place it here.
I compared book reviews in three of the journals looking for similarities and differences. The three reviews I compared were the Miller review in TCQ, the Poster review in RSQ and the Bergman review in WAC.
I immediately found a commonality between the three--all of them cite additional sources. These might include other writers on the same topic as the book or parts of the book who provide backgrounding, or scholars whose discoveries have been different than or completed by the new work.
The listing of the references, however, is not consistent. The review in the WAC Journal does not include a list of references. Instead the writer has included all of the information (except publisher) in the body of her article. The TCQ review has an MLA list of the three books/articles cited in the article. And the RSQ Journal review includes more than 2 pages of references. While nearly a page of these refer to other publications by the reviewed author, I was surprised to discover that Poster had indeed cited so many different scholars in a book review.
Clearly there is no "right way" to do this, so it must relate to the guidelines for each journal. The length and writing style contribute to this as well.
The WAC review was personable: "I expected," "I anticipated," "I agree." This is a glowing review--a recommendation with an emotional element attached to writer's belief that this book has great practical value. It is also quite short. The RSQ review starkly contrasts in length, style and content. Poster sets the book she reviews in context of both the author's past scholarship and the work being done many related fields. She then walks the reader chapter by chapter through the book, and even makes reading recommendations for different levels of scholarship. This review is more than 7 pages long and formal in style.
Miller's review falls somewhere in the middle. While her style is more in the post-modern style I have come to expect of a certain group of rhetoric scholars, she refrains from referring to herself until the middle of the third page. She also gives a good deal of background to both the topic and the book without going in to the detail or organization Poster used. I thought it was interesting that, of the three, this is the only review that doesn't explicitly recommend the book.
The article that I looked at: "That's just a story" was interesting. I found it the most appealing coming from a background in science and education. It seems highly appropriate to use narratives and personal stories/anecdotes as a way to communicate what is going on in the classroom and exchanging ideas but the quantitative data is lacking in several of the articles we have read for this class. I think this is one separating factor for the humanities, like the author mentioned.
Even though 'teacher lore' is useful, they strongly argue for more objective, measurable studies. In education, both objective and subjective data are used. In fact, to move between levels within the state licensure system for public school teachers, the teacher must have documentation-- proof using student work, etc.-- to show that they can meet each area of assessment. since we are talking about teaching writing, it makes sense to use student work and our own anecdotes, but the use of rubrics, measureable results, standards and benchmarks (outcomes) are all very important. In science, anecdotes are laughed at- like in that first example provided by the author.
I like the way it ended, not trying to convince each side that we are right, but trying to learn from each other.
I was interested in the review of Joseph Harris’s Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts, since we read it in 537. The review starts off with a reference to Burke’s parlor, which Harris also uses in the book, followed by a reference to Richard Rorty. Obviously Burke and Rorty are two very well known names in Composition Studies. The review author, Jacob Blumner, critiques Burke’s parlor reference by saying that no one tells novices how to enter the scholarly conversation in that parlor, that is until Harris’s book. Blumner describes the book as a how to book for new scholars who need to learn “the rhetorical moves academic writers make in the academic conversation.” I read Harris’s book when I was a new graduate student, and I hadn’t done much, if any, reading of advanced scholarly texts. Frankly, I didn’t get it. Now, I think it’s because I was trying to understand it as a means for teaching students how to write instead of learning how to write academically myself. After Blumner’s explanation, I feel like I should go back and reread the book, this time paying attention to what it has to offer me as a writer instead of to how I can use it in my teaching.
Kathleen Dudden Bowlands’ “Review of Write for Insight: Empowering Content Area Learning, Grades 6-12” makes the point that learning to write is an important skill, not just for college-bound students, but for all students. This idea links with the Montessori/progymnasmata philosophy that education is a means for preparing students to be good citizens. Writing is an art, but it’s also a skill required throughout life in order to be able to participate in many areas including business, government, community affairs, and social environments. Bowlands says that the book, by William Strong, helps teachers in all disciplines to move past prescriptive techniques for teaching writing and encourage students to write insightfully.
Kate Chanock presents an insightful article, “Helping Thesis Writers to Think about Genre: What is Prescribed, What May be Possible.” Chanock illuminates the two paths for thesis writers who, despite being grad students, may not be comfortable with the act of writing, especially a text that is, as Chanock describes, an “audition” to determine whether the author is “worthy (or not) of membership in the discipline community.” Chanock’s article describes the techniques used in a workshop aimed at helping writers from across the disciplines to figure out what they can (possibilities) and should (prescriptions) do when writing their theses. The methods are taken from genre studies.
Post a Comment