This is the "launch" message for our College English thread. Please use the comment function so that all of our College English comments remain together for easy reviewing.
So what do you think about this strand of discourse among teachers of writing?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
College English
Posted by Susan Romano at 8:38 AM
Labels: College English
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
testing...again
This is the first of three I'll post here for College English...
a) From the editor we learn that college English has launched a new site—seems in some ways like CCC’s interactions, except this one is more of an open place to post. Seems more democratic and lighter in comparison with CCC.
b) The Short Takes piece on Asians in Crash is interesting because the point is that though Asians only appear in the film for a brief amount of time, they make an impact. Is that what the author hopes about her two page article?
c) Author David Holmes explains that he is choosing to open with an anecdote, and then goes on to establish his ethos as an African American man with roots in Los Angeles, and thereby a deep understanding and appreciation of racial tensions depicted by the film Crash. Compared to CCC articles this article has fewer sources, is written in a more familiar/ less overtly academic style.
College English...
d) The comment and response section explores the limits of teaching critical literacy in composition classes. It is clearly advice on pedagogy, but it is not a recipe, but a short, thoughtful reflection on what might work, complete with a series of possible guidelines for designing lessons, units , or courses around critical literacy (difficult issues).
e) Voris Nunley’s essay is as long as those in CCC but isn’t sourced to the same extent, and though it is not conversational or informal it seems to have a less academic tone, with fewer references to rhetorical theorists, perhaps more suitable for a highly educated audience, but an audience not well versed in rhetorical theory.
College English...
f) In the reviews section both books are very clearly focused on the classroom, not theoretical discussions or treatises.
g) Again, Irene Middleton’s essay begins informally with her visit to the local movie theater to see Crash. She makes an interesting comparison to films by Spike Lee. Also, pedagogy comes up when the author discusses methods of teaching film. I thought one of the most interesting points made was the idea that, “since the film showed that everyone is capable of racial stereotyping, these students would no longer need to feel guilty about their own racializing behaviors” (326). This article included more sources than others in the same journal. Also, as we discussed in class, there is something for teachers at the end: a list of films for possible classroom use.
I thought it was interesting that the issue of College English was examining the use of Crash in the classroom. I was surprised that five of the articles began with some narrative (four of which were in relation to the film) to connect to the audience or gain ethos. I was initially surprised that so many of the writers chose this method of introduction. After our discussion from Thursday sank in and thinking about the purpose of a narrative in such a paper made more sense. Depending on the topic, especially if the writer is submitting a topic about their own experience in the classroom, it would be a good idea to begin the article with a narrative. I believe the narrative is also necessary because the personal and specific nature of teaching to explain the situation surrounding the lesson prior to going into the scholarship.
The article by Nunley, like we mentioned in class, also had a unique introduction. I find it to be effective that the author writes about all aspects (we used 'filters' in class) of discourse and rhetoric and intentially leaves out the word 'race.' It is an effective way of grabbing the reader's attention. Even later, that article really stood out in my mind and was the only one I could remember well.
Also, in the book review section, the author (Donahue) uses a similar structure to other reviews (like the ones I read in Kairos). They introduce themselves, the author(s), the book/article, strengths/praise, and weaknesses/critique.
The edition of CE that we looked at was a focused issue dealing with the movie Crash. What I found interesting was that whether the authors liked the movie or not on a personal level, they each saw the movie as a possible mode of teaching. After all, you don't have to find a movie flawless to use it as a teaching tool; instead, a complicated or troubling movie can offer the chance for a class to discuss issues that are not clear-cut. The trend towards looking for the problematic aspects of the film, and how these problems would influence classroom practice or approach, seemed to hold for most of the contributors. Each was interested in laying out what they would do with the film, given the stance they take towards the film.
Well said, Katie!
Ah--FINALLY I have access.
Having looked through this journal, I wanted to return to my initial response in terms of using Crash in our classrooms at UNM.
We have a unique race/ethnicity situation in the Southwest. In many parts of New Mexico, the different ethnicities have become harmonious; in others, there is still great prejudice. Since we were not a part of the initial North-South debacle of 19th Century America, we have to acknowledge that this region has its own issues.
Natives like myself understand these issues, but I worry that new teachers do not take them seriously. Because of this, I would not give special or extra time to one race or ethnic group in my classroom to the detriment of another. And this brings me to the charge of tokenism.
I hardly think it's appropriate (even if it is indeed the editor's motivation) to give validity to the idea of tokenism when discussing this particular movie. The point of Crash is not the same old racism argument we have heard in this country all our lives, but a shedding of light on the breadth of the problem. While the detractors are probably right in saying the movie is too trite or jargonistic to accurately make the point, I was struck by the simple fact that the writers at least TRIED.
The organization of this edition seems to play against that fact. What I learn from this is that, if you want to publish you probably have to play some form of academic political game. I'm not saying I won't be willing to do that, but I will certainly have an opinion about it!
Although I enjoyed reading the short takes in the volume we read, I didn’t really see them as relevant to college English or to rhetoric. In the David Holmes article, he did manage to bring up the subject of rhetoric, talking about how he used the film in his classes to provoke conversation. He talked specifically about the methods he used, “Socratic questioning, role playing, small-group discussion, mock debates, and interactive lecturing” to get his students to talk. He also mentions escorting his students toward some critical thinking by asking thought-provoking questions. But again, this is mostly a critique of the film.
Carmen Kynard’s article is more like the kind of piece I expected to find in this journal. The title is quite scholarly, and unlike the casual tone and easy reading style of the other articles, this one is a little harder to follow. The article is written in an African American vernacular, which set me up to expect another casual critique of Crash, despite the title. However, even with the vernacular, this piece has a definite scholarly bent. Kynard mentions the 1974 CCCC resolution about SRTOL, which begins to explain the vernacular. She also talks about Mina Shaughnessy—a big name in Composition studies. Toward the end of the introduction Kynard sets up the purpose of her article, and shortly after that, the main reason for her use of vernacular becomes very clear. She quotes Ernece Kelly, talking about how she had to become more Black in order to make white participants at the CCCC aware of their unconscious biases. It’s an interesting move and she makes her point; however, this is not a move for novice rhetoric scholars.
Vorris Nunley’s article makes an interesting point—the idea that race rhetoric and identity politics is exhausting. He says “we long to get beyond it—but we can’t say that.” It’s an interesting move because he’s bringing up a point that many probably feel but no one is willing to admit. Again, this is a move for an established professional in the field. Interestingly, Nunley’s point is similar to Kynard’s, not just because it’s an unexpected move, but because the move he makes seems to say one thing, but points out something more important—namely, that race should not be an issue, that we should be able to discuss texts and writing and students without race being a factor, but we are still unfortunately very far away from the goal of an integrated culture in which race doesn’t matter anymore.
Post a Comment