Prompt: Write to Write; or, Aubrey makes a lot of lists.

Sorry I'm late with this post, all. The stress of the first draft caught up with me, along with strep throat. After a full day of rest, some amoxicillin, and the first episode of Jessica Jones, I'm back in action!

Working through my ideas for my article led me to realize that I still don't have my writing process down. I can't really remember how I wrote papers in undergrad, but I've always made lists, and this paper was no exception.

It started with a smaller "list" - an outline of about 400 words. That list grew into about 1000 words; I split my imagined paper into sections with headers, asked research questions, typed in authors and articles and quotes that seemed to answer them, or at least get at an answer. Out of this list grew another: potential sources. This separate list includes sources by name, article title, and year, with quotes I intend to use in some way pasted underneath. This list has grown to 2500 words plus - a combination of quotes and ideas I want to clarify when discussing those articles. Several of the sources I'm using are from articles we read for class, so I consulted my reading notes I've compiled throughout the semester. You guessed it: more lists, organized in hierarchical side notes and important quotations. At the top of my sources list is another list - books I'd like to review as additional sources if I can get my hands on them in time. (I'll paste this list below in case any of you kind souls can send these my way.)

So as I sat to write up my paper, I consulted my lists. I reviewed lists of articles - bibliographies. My outline grew larger, as did my source list. I realized that I feel completely unprepared to adhere to the expressivist "just start writing" technique; I only feel comfortable writing once I already know exactly what I'll have to say. To just start writing means to potentially write things that are "wrong" - things that may be scrapped entirely later.

"But Aubrey," you may say, "You're writing about post-process pedagogy! 'Writing is an act of discovery' and all that."

And I don't disagree. How could I? Of course writing is discovery, and of course I would learn something more about my paper through the act of trying to write it - a bit of fake it til you make it. I'm writing about post-process pedagogy in relation to multimodality, but also identity and authentic voice and audience. To draft ideas by freewrite would be to reject the way that my brain processes information - to an extent, to deny my identity as a developing writer. I thought about ways that we legitimize (sometimes) hastily written text in essay form but struggle to find validity in other ways of expressing a move toward knowledge. What if I'd used sketches to fill in the current gaps in my paper? Ultimately, I included a narrative to make some sense out of my outline - and to an extent, to justify my thoughts as having a legitimate process.

I absolutely won't deny that I felt I should have more to give. If my outline is such a crucial prerequisite to my writing, I should have nailed that down and delivered at least half of my final article. I should have done better. I thought about Rich's encouragement to "finish strong" and wondered if at the end of the semester I'll feel validated as a writer or an imposter. Reenergized or exhausted. (Some of that may have been the strep talking.)

I hope that this semester forces me to develop my individual writing processes and become more confident in the legitimacy of my own writing. For now, I'll keep on keeping on. Two more weeks, guys! We can do this.

Prompt: What is the thesis to your article for this course?

The texts that interested me most throughout our course are those related to post-process pedagogy and the push for multimodality in the classroom. For my extended analysis, I research Iowa State University's first year composition program, ISUComm, and their WOVE (Written, Oral, Verbal, Electronic) pedagogy that guides their writing coursework. I was especially excited to see that there are first year writing programs embracing multimodal communication as a legitimate form of communication on its own, not necessarily accompanied by a reflective or expository text that justifies it. (Discussions of Yancey and Breuch might be relevant here, as well as a brief discussion of that paradigm shift - Kuhn and Selfe.)

Despite this seeming embrace of multimodal pedagogy, composition scholarship still often reflects the values of a more traditional, perhaps solely process pedagogy. The vast majority of composition scholarship remains purely written, with the occasional image or graph. Scholarship has made a move toward multimodality in the form of web texts and podcasts, for example, but that move has been slow in the face of more traditional work. How do we measure "successful" scholarship? Are multimodal forms of scholarship given a legitimate space in the field of rhetoric and composition? Are they treated with the same sense of legitimacy as written texts? This may lead to a discussion of how we might legitimize these texts and theorizing of the future of multimodal scholarship.

I'm still tossing around specifics, but for my final paper, I'd like to examine the significance (or lack) of multimodal composition scholarship, particularly in light of an increasingly multimodal approach to writing instruction. I'm thinking particularly of web texts, although I'll bring in other forms as necessary. (Some examples of web texts: The New Work of Composing, Digital Mirrors, Techne, ConJob. An examination of texts published in Kairos may also be helpful.)

Prompt: Review the learning objectives for this course. What's one thing you've learned that connects to an objective and to your future job?

This week’s prompt draws from the learning objectives in the syllabus: audience awareness, critical thinking, diversity and multiculturalism, grammatical information presentation, stylistic information presentation, and communication skills. Although I think – hope – that I could speak to each of these learning objectives in relation to my own knowledge and the assignments completed, I’m struggling with my response this week. One thing I’ve learned? But I’ve learned so much! (And yet still feel entirely self conscious speaking to that knowledge.) My future job? Uh…well I…I thought I knew. Perhaps the reason I’m struggling to connect an objective to my knowledge and a future job is that the things I’ve learned have left me questioning my next step.

Since undergrad – perhaps earlier – I’ve had my eyes set on The Job. The Job shifts with my understanding of work (who even knew technical writers existed as a freshman?) but a practical component has always remained. I always go by Aubrey – not Dr., not Ms., not Madam – and Aubrey sits in a cutesy office typing up communication documents or editing manuscripts and goes home to her one (maybe two) miniature dachshunds. This idea of The Job hasn’t completely dissipated; I’m only in school for my MA. I haven’t locked in to anything! Nothing has changed! Right?

But if that’s so: Why did I have an hour-long conversation about authentic voice(s) yesterday? (On a Saturday, no less!) Why do I stress over the feedback that students receive (from me and others), forever searching for that perfect balance that allows them to express their own authentic voices, while ensuring they know they haven’t yet “mastered” the grammar of Standard English, while providing enough commentary not to overwhelm them? Why do I initiate (or at least engage) potentially controversial and complex issues of cultural appropriation and academic expertise?

Perhaps the answer is: Aubrey, you’re in grad school. These conversations happen (and besides, you were never good at keeping your mouth shut).

Whatever the explanation, I find the things I’m learning in this course and others – the critical discussions I’m engaged in – to be contradicting my knowledge of self. I laugh off a PhD remark and go home to research Writing Centers. I spend a few hours on a brief report and an entire day on ten student papers. Is this what grad school does to you? (PhD students unanimously respond, “Yes” – or so I suspect.)

To wrap it up: I’m struggling to identify one thing I’ve learned because everything I’ve learned is tied into knots. (Have you ever traveled with necklaces and tried to untangle the knots that result? It’s a struggle. Trust me.) I’m struggling to connect my learning to a future job because my idea of The Job has changed more in the last two months than the last four years. This is where I haphazardly connect these ideas to a learning objective: critical thinking. According to the syllabus, “Students will become more conscious of their processes for planning, drafting, revising, and editing of writing.” I’m not entirely sure that I’ve become more conscious of my own processes – but I’m certainly considering them in new ways.