CCC Thread:
Some thoughts on developing your own reading protocols, using the CCC comics article as an example.
If you find the content of an article relevant to your research interests, then please do talk about that content in your blog posts (in addition to taking good personal notes). For example, “Comics as Sponsors of Multimodal Literacy” provides a really fine rehearsal of key arguments/authors in media literacy (Kress, New London Group, selected authors) and plain literacy (Brandt). It offers key terms and concepts (literacy sponsorship; the three kinds of design). All of this is fair game for discussion, say, between Greg and Candice and Leslie, who work in this area and who may want to add on, clarify, question, etc. the content itself.
If, however, you are not particularly interested in multimodal literacies, you can still observe very important features of this article. Note especially how much time this author spends on general discussions of literacy - > multimodal literacy in relation to time spend on the case study itself. This is because editors know that readership for comics (the case study) is small, but that readership for issues in literacy and media literacy is large. So if you have a case study type of article in mind, you can begin noticing how other writers distribute the weight between examples and generalizations. (Case study at the end is not the only way to accomplish this weighting, so let’s look for other versions of distribution).
As an aside—note the insertion of the classical inheritance into a contemporary situation—also a common move.
Friday, January 25, 2008
College Composition and Communication
Posted by Susan Romano at 11:53 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Here I looked at the following articles in more depth: “Portfolio Parternships…,” “Marveling at The Man Called Nova:…,” “Teaching about Writing…” and the Review Essay, “Affecting Rhetoric.”
As I reviewed each of these, I took particular note of the professional titles/positions of each of the authors: ‘comics’ was written by an Asst Professor and Dir of Comp; 'portfolios' are Asoc. Prof of English and Prof of Nursing at Northern Illinois; ‘Teaching about Writing’ are assistant professors; and a PhD level grad student wrote the review.
Here's an analysis of the first three: (I'm particularly interested in the content of 'Teaching' so I'll add that later).
“Portfolios” seems to use a pretty standard, top-down, thesis-driven academic format, beginning with ‘known’ or generally accepted info, supported by a well-integrated and succinct lit review. The middle of the third page then transitions into the ‘problem,’ signaled by the phrase: “Yet much of what we claim…” Followed pretty quickly by the purpose/thesis statement: “…this essay analyzes and critiques a specific portfolio partnership…” and at the end of this paragraph: “Our main aim is to contribute to a WAC-informed model of programmatic portfolio assessment…”
The authors then begin detailing the significance (exigence) of the study. The next section heavily details their research methodology—I need to digress here: this seems really detailed (needlessly detailed—from a tech writing standpoint, I want to start cutting)…but I guess to demonstrate the intricacies involved in developing the SON/WAC partnership? But then, again, the purpose of the methods section is to provide sufficient info that the reader could replicate the study and the intent would be to draw from their study design—followed by research results and discussion/interpretation of those results (they don’t use any of these terms to organize the paper—because I’m so grounded in tech writing, this is how I would characterize what’s going on). I also noticed the heavily theoretical justification pretty consistently.
“Marveling at The Man Called Nova” starts with a personal anecdote followed by a more in depth explanation of the anecdote where he introduces/narrows the topic to ‘multimodal literacy and comics.’ He concludes with his thesis outlining his research approach (case study): “Using ‘The Man Called Nova’ as a case study,…” The next paragraph (‘Comics as Multimodal…’) delves into a theoretical heavy discussion of comics as genre (lit review) where the author embeds his own argument (bottom of pg. 181): “To this I would add…”
The body of the article is also pretty heavily theoretical (similar to the in depth theoretical justifications/underpinnings in the above article). The author takes the main ideas from key texts central to his argument, outlines the relevant info in detail and then paraphrases as well as offers a more in depth interpretation to relate each ideas back to his own discussion (a careful ‘back and forth’ weaving between the ideas of relevant texts and his own ideas). He relies heavily on direct single line quotes as well as block quotes to integrate info from his sources. Towards the end of his article, he then goes back to personal narrative to illustrate his idea of comics as fostering multimodal literacy. The conclusion then pulls together his ideas within the context of his lit review.
The Review Essay, “Affecting Rhetoric,” also starts with an anecdote (but not as personal or familiar as the anecdote used in ‘comics’—it’s seems, actually, superficial and tentative whereas the ‘comics’ anecdote seemed more personal and engaging). The author uses the anecdote to lead into exploring the idea of “ ‘drawing on the gut’ for rhetorical effect.” She then brings in Edward PJ Corbett to help illustrate this idea and using paraphrase as well as direct quote to explain this idea in more detail but she does not integrate or ‘weave’ her own ideas to the extent of ‘comics.’
I notice this approach again on the 3rd page when she introduces another source (Massumi) to define a term she has just introduced: ‘body rhetoric.’ At the top of the 4th page, she pulls the texts she’s cited together with her own interpretation but the careful ‘weaving’ that I saw in ‘comics’ seems to be absent. There seem to be very clear cut boundaries between where their ideas (her sources) end and hers begin.
The body of the article really begins on the middle of this page (whereas the previous lead-in and definitions were more of the intro). Here the author sticks pretty closely to summary (it is a book review essay of three different books) and she uses the first book/author to lead into the 2nd.
A few generalizations...
Detailed and focused theoretical justification is crucial—each text spent a great deal of time citing and integrating outside sources. ‘Portfolio’s relies heavily on previous research to justify their methodological approach (and, again, the sheer detail here astounded me—because this is WAC and probably ‘experimental?’ or would any qualitative research study printed in this journal need to provide this level of detail?). ‘Comics’ too relies heavily on outside sources to ground the author’s argument (in previous knowledge) and he uses his sources to build his argument in a way that I didn’t see in the book review, but that’s certainly pretty standard in academic writing (in our field, at least).
So using outside sources to ‘build’ an argument is part of what we claim we strive for in academic writing (here I’m talking about teaching FY writing but also in doing our own writing as grad students)—we’re ‘joining a conversation,’ attempting to add to existing knowledge in the field. But I think actually pulling this off is a move that takes a certain ethos (that I’m not necessarily convinced that grad students have). The move I saw the grad student making—and granted, it is a book review—was not really to ‘add’ ‘to the conversation’ but more to ‘create’ or establish the conversation so that she would have the credibility to actually participate in it. The centrality of the outside sources as providing the only context and the lack of her own definitive ideas (after all she was reviewing Sharon Crowley!) is a lot safer. But I’m certainly not criticizing her approach. On the contrary, I see this as a move available to graduate students when we’re trying to initially join the conversation.
I have a few comments on CCC, which I'll leave in seperate posts according to the articles.
a) Dale Jacobs’ “Marveling at the Man Called Nova” opens with an anecdote and continues for the first several paragraphs in a somewhat informal way, before dropping a couple of names in the field through two definitions for comics, related to multimodal literacy. The author calls for a shift in the way we view comics—not as “debased written texts” but as multimodal texts. The author uses a lot of quotations and sources to back his points. On page 182, a long quote from Kress expresses the inadequacy of theories of language for dealing with communication in the current multimodal context. Pedagogy comes in on page 182; the idea that we need to include a reaction to the changed world in the way we teach. A sort of sustained interaction between author and the New London Group (specifically Kress) occurs in the article. An opposing viewpoint to the validity of reading comics is brought in the form of Frederic Wertham (a 1950s psychiatrist and author/ seems an easy foe to defeat).
Also on CCC...
b) The address given by Anonke also begins with a very personal anecdote. It provides a nice context for those unfamiliar with the mission of the conference. In response to the debate over whether or not CCCC should focus on theory or pedagogy, she offers the idea of praxis as the overlap of theory and pedagogy. This is fun to read; I feel encouraged.
c) In the from the Editor’s introduction, the idea of raising our voices and entering the public debate on teaching English is supported.
d) The interchanges section seemed friendly, yet definitely made a point in opposition to the author’s.
e) Portfolio Partnerships (Brad Peters/ Julie Fisher Robertson) explains that WAC needs to focus on assessment if it is to survive. (a reason to read on) A major question is do we do portfolios because we simply believe they work. What is the research to support the efectivness of using portfolios? Very detailed outline of piloted program complete with pitfalls and lessons learned.
f) The section discussing Joseph Janagelo’s article from 1998 is an interesting text, in that it operates like a sort of open forum (almost like a court room) with the author able to give comments on the others’ comments on his own work.
g) The book review also begins with the author of the reviews providing a personal anecdote before launching into theoretical discourse.
I've noticed in the CCC as well as the other journals we've been reviewing is the consistent use of personal anecdotes to begin the articles. Both Candice and Dylan point them out here. The question I have is whether the personal anecdotes contribute or detract from the Ethos of the authors. In other words, is their Ethos established by their credentials already, and the anecdotes used to connect with the readers, or are the anecdotes used to increase Ethos for the writers outside of their credentials? I'm going to spend some time tonight and tomorrow examining the types and styles of the anecdotes themselves to see what consistencies, if any exist. I'm also curious if an anecdote from a graduate student would have the same effect as it does from an established and published PhD.
In response to Greg's last posting, I'm also intrigued by the anecdote move and am curious as to what conclusions you'll come to.
Like 'comics,' the grad student writing the book review article in this issue also opens with an anecdote but it works very differntly. The anecdote in 'comics' is a reflection of the author's experience growing up in late 1970s and so seemed really personal (to me) whereas the anecdote in the book review was detached. The author never involved herself in the anecdote (what did she think about the sermon? how did it affect her? how is it relevant to the review?) but used it simply to introduce her leading idea of 'gut rhetoric.'
My initial impression (and I'm thinking about the Holmes' intro to the CE issue on 'Crash'), I think it works more to 'connect' with readers (as you said) maybe rather than to establish ethos... Interesting for sure...
"Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions" was especially interesting to me, so I want to discuss that piece as well as offer some generalizations I noted.
As with the pieces in CS, the articles in CCC begin by offering an overview/contextualizing the problem the writer wishes to explore. Moreover, I noticed that the contributors of CCC tend to spend a good deal of time "problematizing" the problem they are writing about. I don't know if it's just because I was paying attention to this particular move when I read CCC, or whether CCC puts more of an emphasis on exploring particular and relevant problems within the field. In "Teaching about Writing," for example, Downs and Wardle don't simply propose exchanging one first-year writing approach for another. Instead, they open their article by discussing what we have long considered troubling expectations to which first-year writing instructors are held. Then the authors clarify their purpose: they are not lamenting unreasonable expectations imposed upon writing instructors. Instead, they intend to raise a call to action, placing the onus on scholars within comp and rhetoric to be accountable: "Our field reinforces cultural misconceptions of writing rather than attempting to educate students and publics out of those misconceptions" (553). This call is aimed at composition and rhetoric scholars, scholars who the authors say are complicit in the problem. This article, though, is not a rebuke either. Instead, it is a call to re-envision the mission of first-year writing, to move from a view of writing as a basic skill to a view of writing studies as a discipline with content knowledge which students need to be introduced to.
"Teaching about Writing" proposes an alternate pedagogy. It seems fairly typical of this journal to expect writers to move beyond a call to awareness, and to take ideas a step further into a call to action. The writers then outline what a course/activity/discipline would look like if instructors were to put ideas into action. The audience of CCC is other composition and rhetoric scholars who are also educators interested in taking an active part in shaping the field of comp studies. My final note on "Teaching about Writing" was that it reads like a pitch to other comp instructors ("here's the problem, here's another way we can view the problem, and here's what we can do based on this new perspective").
Ditto for Dylan's comment about several authors using the personal anecdotes to illustrate their point. The story used about the planting party in the Chair's address by Anokye was clever. The common thread being the 'company we keep.' Obviously the address was meant to be read aloud/heard but it seemed effective. Anokye uses these stories to invoke the question- who does CCCC keep company with? They outline the direction/questions they want to bring up in the talk, then mention that CCCC keeps going because of its outside connections to other fields and its internal connections and community to composition studies. Anokye moves into talking about current issues of English teachers and how CCCC has been/or will address these needs (esp ELL students)and how members/newcomers view CCCC. The talk ends with a wrap up of the goals and status report- at the end stating proudly "Then, finally, we can say we are proud of the company we keep."
I just found it interesting to look at a talk instead of an article. There are things in common but I believe the talk had more of a personal tone and used rhetorical questions but the written papers also contained these elements (to a lesser nature).
I may indeed be writing a case study article--and if not for this course, it is certainly the form I'll be writing in 543. I am very interested in the conversational/scholarly tone. This writer is clearly a scholar, however his writing is accessible enough that I can imagine writing in a similar style myself. This allows me to turn in a paper that is acceptable in the classroom, and yet extremely easy to tweak for popular publication in my book project.
Unfortunately I can't find the full version of this article. I would like to be able to read the entire thing to be able to make an outline.
Oops--I copied the wrong post!
I originally read the prompt for this journal to imply that the comics article (Marveling at The Man Called Nova) was a case study. So I read the article with great confusion. Is one person's experience, extrapolated to include all readers of his age and time period, really a case study? Have I missed something important in my time in grad school?
Clearly, I misinterpreted! So as I charted the progress of the article, I became more confused a to what I was reading.
Upon returning to the prompt, however, I realized my mistake. One of my great hopes in this course is that my skimming skills will be improved! But in order to do that, I need some instruction.
Back to the article. One thing I took away, from a purely process standpoint, is the sheer volume of definition the author includes. From beginning to end, he is setting up the conversation through the various definitions that other scholars have given to the various terms he explores. It appears to me that he is weaving his own personal experience through these definitions without ever really establishing his own ideas. Perhaps it is this setup that allows him to make assumptions about all readers of comics based on his own experience.
I still stand by my earlier assertion that the mix of first-person with scholarly presentation appeals to me. While this combination of styles doesn't always work for every writer, it works quite well for Jacobs.
The Downs and Wardle article has the most direct connection with what I’m working on for my project. They start out by describing the current situation in FYC courses and pointing out how our unwillingness to move beyond the current state makes us complicit in the assumption that writing is a non-discipline. “We silently support the misconceptions that writing is not a real subject, that writing courses do not require expert instructors, and that rhetoric and composition are not genuine research areas or legitimate intellectual pursuits.”
Downs and Wardle move from pointing out our accessory status in this “crime” against our field of study to describing what they will do in the rest of the article. The tone is serious but the writing and structure are not particularly difficult to understand. They set up their framework in several paragraphs and then use headings to divide the sections. The first few sections expand on the problems with teaching writing as a universal skill that can be transferred to other courses and challenge the current outcomes expected of FYC courses. The next several sections explain what needs to be done to change the misconceptions about what FYC can accomplish. These sections include specific proposals for what kinds of expectations are reasonable and provides descriptions of appropriate pedagogical techniques and materials. The article contains case studies of actual students with whom they’ve tested these techniques, and also provides student feedback. Finally, the article offers challenges that need to be addressed, as well as critiques of their recommendations.
It’s important to note that case studies are a methodology that works for this journal. Most of the recent articles are directly about the profession of teaching writing. Articles covered discussions of teachers themselves, as well as classroom practices. Some articles focused on specific topics such as politics, history, disability, and gender as they relate to the writing classroom. The variety of topics was similar to the articles in College English, but the focus here is more clearly on the application of those topics to the writing classroom.
Post a Comment