Prompt: What is andragogy, and how might the approach help in teaching FYC?

Andragogy is the practice of instructing adult learners. In contrast to some young student learners – or at least, what they’ve been taught to expect in an academic environment – adult learners value practical application. How can the skills learned in the classroom directly apply to the work they’ll be doing in their careers?

Malcolm Knowles’ Four Principles of Andragogy (source below):

1. Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction.
2. Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for the learning activities.
3. Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance and impact to their job or personal life.
4. Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented. (Kearsley, 2010)

Reading through these four principles, it sounds like the “contact zones”-based curriculums we’ve discussed in class would be appealing to adult learners. In this kind of coursework, courses are shaped around a topic or problem and students create documents that revolve around that issue.

Andragogic techniques might be relevant to First Year Composition students because both highly value product (versus, or including, process) theories of writing. Adult learners and FYC students are both accustomed to seeing direct applicability of their knowledge in the form of workplace texts and grades, respectively. Particularly in the point of #3, both of these learners want to see how the documents they are creating in class are going to be immediately relevant to their future (or current) career. While theory instruction is clearly useful, these groups prioritize praxis.

Choose Your Own Adventure Syllabus

A FYC curriculum utilizing andragogic techniques might be adaptable to its users. Much as in the structure of this class, students could have a kind of “Choose Your Own Adventure” syllabus, picking assignments with point values to add up to a total “score.” To avoid students choosing only “small” assignments (<3 points a piece) or only “large” assignments (6+ points), students might be required to choose from so many of each – perhaps, choose two large assignments and five small assignments, all adding up to 20 points total. I don’t know, guys. I’m just brainstorming!

Keeping with this CYOA syllabus, assignments within each point-based category would represent different values – think how Rich provides options to do Extended Analyses with an academics/theory sway versus an industry/praxis sway. Any option has value, but the options allow students some involvement in (as above) “the planning and evaluation of their instruction.”  The opportunity to revise assignments would allow students to learn through experience – and failure. (Should there be a limit? Doesn’t revising/reinvisioning the work add significantly to their workload, acting as a self-inflicted form of motivation to do it “right” the next time around?)

Well now that I wrote all of this…I just Googled, and a Choose Your Own Adventure syllabus isn’t an uncommon idea! Also, I might know what I want to do for my FYC syllabus this semester….

Helpful article outlining Malcolm Knowles’ adult learning theory: http://elearningindustry.com/the-adult-learning-theory-andragogy-of-malcolm-knowles

Some mentions of a “Choose Your Own Adventure” Syllabus:

http://tanamschiewer.com/the-choose-your-own-adventure-syllabus/

http://www.jonbecker.net/hacking-the-syllabus/

Prompt: Philosophy of Composition

I struggled this week. How can I synthesize everything I value in the teaching of writing into a few bullet points? I started with a not-nearly comprehensive list of values, in random order, like this:

My values:

• Process-focused writing
• Engaging students’ internal motivation
• Class discussion
• Bring technology into the classroom
• New Rhetoric value of “dynamic and dialectic” truth
• Expressivist value of inherent value in writing
• Audience-focused writing
• “Real-world” writing
• Mimetic value of clear writing based on clear thinking
• Critical thinking

Then I began grouping them. What can fall under the same broad category?

Group 1

• Engaging students’ internal motivation
• Bring technology into the classroom
• Expressivist value of inherent value in writing (this almost became a separate category altogether)

Group 2

• Audience-focused writing
• “Real world” writing

Group 3

• Process-focused writing
• Class discussion
• Critical thinking
• Mimetic value of clear writing based on clear thinking
• New Rhetoric value of “dynamic and dialectic” truth (this almost landed somewhere else; perhaps it doesn’t belong at all?)

And then I attempted to synthesize them into cohesive values, below:

1: I believe in engaging students in the classroom in ways that are immediately relevant to them.

I believe in engaging students’ internal motivations by making the coursework relevant to their individual interests and realities. I value technology into the classroom in the form of blogs, discussion boards, or some other means of conducting asynchronous discussion, encouraging conversation that connects readings and class discussions to students’ personal experiences and ideas. There is inherent value in this kind of expressivist writing: both as an internal motivation to engage with coursework and as a kind fleshed-out brainstorm activity. This space would also serve as an area for students to connect pieces of their own realities (Facebook posts, relevant articles, etc) to larger ideas from class discussion (audience and purpose, for example).

2: I believe in the value of writing to a known audience and the pragmatism in preparing students for workplace writing.

I have always found significant value in assignments that required me to find my own client and complete a loosely defined assignment based on the needs of that audience. Selecting their own client allows students to write for and about audiences and contexts that may be directly relevant to their future career. In this way, my teaching would emphasize workplace writing – writing that is relevant to each student’s idea of “work” and “place.” In addition, I think that audience-focused writing teaches students human as well as practical skills, encouraging them to consider their place in society as a citizen as well as an actor.

3: I believe that classroom practices emphasizing critical thinking can engage students to think and write clearly.

This grouping feels a little garbled to me, but I’ll try to defend the choice to classify these together. I believe that critical thinking is one of the most difficult and most significant steps in the instruction of writing. Process-based (versus product-based) writing in the classroom encourages students to think about their assignments as intertwined pieces within a larger process, emphasizing things like class discussion and workshops as a means of brainstorming and revision. I believe that these practices lead to clearer thinking which leads to clearer writing.

So – what do y’all think? Would you have categorized my values in other ways? 

Prompt: Based on your teaching philosophy (which may change over time), what are types of assignments you would include in a FYC syllabus?

This week we read James Berlin’s Contemporary Composition. He discusses four theories of writing pedagogy: Neo-Aristotelians/Classicists, Positivists/Current-Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists/ Expressionists, and New Rhetoricians (Berlin’s preferred). I identify most strongly with the pedagogy of New Rhetoricians like Kenneth Burke and Andrea Lunsford. Berlin describes that within this theory meaning is formed between the interaction of the writer, reality, and the reader. Truth, then, is not pre-existing but “dynamic and dialectical.” We’ve also been discussing product- versus process-focused writing. Students seem so focused on their writing product, represented by a grade. My evolving teaching philosophy would emphasize the value in the writing process and seek to engage students’ internal motivations.

Considering these values, my First Year Composition syllabus would include assignments that highlight the writing process, like brainstorms, outlines, multiple revisions/drafts, and peer critiques. These assignments would likely culminate into a rhetorical analysis that would allow students to see how they can create meaning within their own writing. Working thesis statements would be emphasized at each draft and discussed in class. I would guide class discussions around defining audience, context, and purpose as well as understanding rhetorical appeals.

And while I’m mentioning class discussion – this would be an assignment in itself. I don’t expect FYC students to be able to speak eloquently about the complexity of rhetorical appeals, but I would hope to create a classroom environment that encourages the sharing of all ideas. The success of my hypothetical course would rely heavily on these class discussions: I’d rather assess students’ understanding of the given topic in this informal setting before assigning grades to final drafts that speak to a level of misunderstanding (a failure on my part).

Based almost wholly on my experience grading BA1 (the first assignment, a brief rhetorical analysis) last week, I would not assign grades for their first attempted rhetorical analysis (which would either be a small in-class assignment or the first draft of their rhetorical analysis). I would reluctantly assign grades to other assignments as a necessary means of assessment.

I’ve stated I would try to engage students’ internal motivations. To do so, I would encourage students to pick their own topics for their rhetorical analysis – a bit more work on my part, but worth the higher potential for motivated writers. At every opportunity, I would give students a chance to guide discussion. Although in-class assignments would have to be identical for the sake of time, other assignments would have multiple options when possible so students have the opportunity to choose the topic most interesting to them.

Lastly, I would find a way to engage my students with technology. I’ve really enjoyed assignments in the past that incorporated a weekly digital component, such as writing a personal blog or linking in relevant articles to a shared blog. Perhaps I could narrowly prompt students for the first few weeks – “Post to the class blog about XYZ” – and then give them more freedom as they begin to understand my expectations for the weekly assignment. For example, students might post a recent article and briefly discuss the author’s audience, context, and purpose. This weekly practice would allow students to share ideas and facilitate discussion beyond the classroom.

Prompt: What is the most difficult thing to teach in the teaching of writing, and how do you go about teaching that?

My teaching experience is practically non-existent. As such, there are two ways to approach this question: as a fledgling grader for the Texas Tech First Year Composition program, or as a student of writing who’s watched her skills (and her peers’ skills) develop from the construction of sentences into investigated, audience-driven text.

One common thread among these experiences (although certainly not the only) is the difficulty in developing critical thinking. Among the 27 student papers I graded this last week, only a handful were able to identify choices made by the author and consider a deeper purpose behind these choices. Many papers summarized rather than analyzed. Of those that analyzed rhetorical choices within the text, nearly all pointed back at the author’s text as a purpose within itself, i.e. “The author used informal language because she wanted to write an informal text.” Some of these same students said they had received a foundation in rhetorical analysis in high school (and on that note, some of the students who successfully investigated a purpose recalled minimal writing experiences). Not a single paper that I graded critiqued how effective the author was in achieving their purpose.

But how does one teach critical thinking? Again we encounter that daunting gap from high school to college writing: shouldn’t the students already know this?

The difficulty in teaching critical thinking is not restricted to “inexperienced” writers. I saw students struggle with critical thinking in my upper-level undergraduate writing courses. To me, critical thinking is not only about examining the unseen in the text, but engaging in this process without prompt. (How many students would even think to question the authors of their assigned reading without first being told that there was something worth examining there?)

My favorite and ultimately most valuable courses were those with little guidance. How long should an assignment be? As long as it needs to be. What kind of analysis are we applying to this text? Whichever kind you think applies. The wonderful thing about this kind of teaching is that it forces students to engage with what THEY think, rather than what they think the instructor thinks.

When do we take off the training wheels and encourage students to do their own investigation? How do we get students to the point where they’re ready to address their own thoughts in a text – no prompt required? The obvious answer is “When they enter college/university,” but this answer becomes a lot less obvious when you see the work of First Year Composition writers.  

So I’ll be frank: I don’t have the answers. If anyone did, we’d have a standardized First Year Composition course across the discipline. Perhaps a collaboration between teachers of K-12 and college professors would shrink the gap. Perhaps there’s an alternative to First Year Composition – a two-semester course where the first semester is really there to gauge where students’ writing skills are at and give them feedback to encourage mature writing. (And I think at some universities, FYC serves as this kind of mediator.)

I think what it comes down to is that students are terrified to get “bad” grades. (Product versus Process, right?) They’ve been taught that the best way to receive “good” grades is to follow directions to a tee – but, I would argue, this isn’t the best way to encourage students’ unprompted critical thinking. Perhaps at the end of this semester (and my first semester of grading) I’ll have more answers.