Revolution Lullabye

July 29, 2013

Mullen, Students’ Rights and the Ethics of Celebration

Mullen, Mark. “Students’ Rights and the Ethics of Celebration.” Writing Program Administration 36.2 (Spring 2013): 95-116.

Mullen questions the ethics of “student celebrations of writing,” culminative activities for many first-year writing programs which are used for a variety of purposes, including programmatic assessment and as a way to argue for the “authenticity” of first-year writing.  Mullen connects student celebrations of writing to the 1974 Students’ RIght to Their Own Language statement, arguing that students’ rights are violated when their participation in student celebrations of writing is mandated and when their written assignments and course work are co-opted and used by faculty and administrators.  Mullen suggests that student celebrations of writing move from generic promotions of writing, which he describes as having a “whiff of desparation” about them, towards more pedagogically-oriented events that target specific aspects of writing (i.e. research and writing or public writing) and that engage students in the planning of the activities instead of using them as the subject of the celebrations. He also argues that CCCC and NCTE need to engage in the conversation about the ethics of student celebrations of writing and SRTOL in general.

Notable Notes

uses Eastern Michigan University’s Celebration of Student Writing as an example

also criticizes required student-writing anthologies (like the one at UMass Amherst): “I hope I’m not the only one to see something a little problematic in the repackaging of uncompensated work that students were, after all, required to produce in order to create a product that other students are required to buy” (97).

student celebrations of writing emerge from a move toward student-centered pedagogies and valuing of “public” or “authentic” writing assignments (97)

students and student writing become “exhibits” that we use as faculty and administrators to promote the teaching of writing – for our own purposes (102). Who owns the student work produced in our courses? Who benefits from it?

2 central questions: who is responsible for the work produced in our writing classroom (students or teachers)? Who gets to speak for the writing? (104)

the myth of “authentic” writing (104-105)

the desire of teachers to negate their own influence over their students (104)

Quotable Quotes

“The problem with the current emphasis on celebration – evident in the examples I have sketched above – is that in our enthusiasm to celebrate the writing (or the student, or the research…) we seem to check our critical faculties at the door. I cannot emphasize too strongly that I am not charging celebration organizers with some kind of malign agenda. It is, in fact, precisely due to celebration’s appearance as an unadulterated good – what harm could possibly be done by a celebration? – that the celebration of student writing is an ethical minefield” (97).

“Our celebratory practices deserve scrutiny not least for the fact that what we as teachers of writing seem to end up celebrating most often is actually not the student or their writing but, as I will show, our teaching and ourselves – even, paradoxically, in the act of denying the influence of our teaching” (97)

“Moreover, if we really believe that the students’ right to their own language includes the full spectrum of languages they invent, nuture, protect, hide, manipulate, fake, mangle, and abandon in our classes, then one of the most problematic areas of our practice becomes the celebration of student writing” (103).

“To what degree are our celebrations implicated in the various educational movements that insist that learning can be reduced to externalized, immediately measurable demonstrations of outcomes? In a troubling irony, our fixation on an unreflective celebration of authenticity may reinforce the same reductive, systemic, consumption-driven view of writing that so many of our celebrations are attempting to overcome” (111).

August 23, 2012

Cambridge, Research and Policy: Antithetical or Complementary?

Cambridge, Barbara. “Research and Policy: Antithetical or Complementary?” WPA 35.1 (Fall/Winter 2011): 135-147.

Cambridge uses her experience meeting with the Secretary of Education Duncan with other NCTE representatives to reflect on the relationship between research and policy-making in the US and to call on compositionists and writing program administrators to use their expertise in writing teaching and learning to impact educational policy.

Cambridge resists the notion that legislators don’t listen or don’t care about writing research; she cites examples from studies done on the impact of research on policy to show that legislators and policy-makers are working in a complex political situation, so that their decisions do not always mesh with what we in the field think should happen. The research Cambridge cites does show that legislators do relies on “intermediaries”: trusted sources of research-based information on public policy issues.  Cambridge argues that writing program administrators and compositionists can become these intermediaries and impact public policy decisions if 1. we craft long-term, trusted relationships with policy makers; 2. become knowledgable about policy issues and build those into our research agenda so that we can give pertinent information in a timely manner so we become “go-to” experts; 3. teach public writing in our composition classroom so that our students have “rhetorical agency in the current political climate” (143); 4. argue for changes in tenure guidelines that count policy research and public policy work as research, not service; and 5. understand and communicate to others how important research is to policy work.

Notable Notes

Bogenschneider and Corbett study: how sound research affects policy: “allocations – altering how resources are distributed; tactics – altering how policies and programs are designed; solutions – altering how policies and programs are pursued; framework – altering how we basically think about certain social issues; salience – altering how much importance we give an issue; awareness – altering even how we think about doing policy” (qtd. 293) (146)

importance of narration in public writing and rhetoric. The Common Core has de-emphasized narration in favor of argumentation. Does that really prepare our students for being effective citizens in a democracy? What is lost? (144)

know your legislator = knowing your audience. It’s basic rhetorical strategy.

timeliness is key – research isn’t valuable unless it’s available as (or before) decisions are being made.

Quotable Quotes

“Unless colleges and universities wake up to the crisis in our political system; acknowledge their responsibility to address it in multiple ways, including figuring out how to generate and communicate research that applies to the system; and value those of its faculty members and administrators who develop expertise in that responsibility, colleges and universities are failing the society in which they operate.” (146).

 

Blog at WordPress.com.