One thing I have appreciated about many of the readings for this class is the variety of ways in which information and research is presented. For this week, the Shipka and Pignetti articles certainly made me rethink what constitutes Scholarship in the field (an essay with streaming video of student interviews and an analysis piece based almost entirely on the deeply personal? The hell you say). In relation to the Shipka article, I was found myself at once inspired and put on the defensive. Her assignments seem so innovative, thought-provoking, and relevant to what students will have to do once they leave the academy, i.e. “Instead of requiring that students produce linear, print-based texts, the framework for composing…provide students with open-ended, inquiry-based tasks that invite students to draw on a much wider range of materials, methodologies, technologies and rhetorical strategies than writing courses have traditionally tended to allow” (Shipka). Yet, aside from my one claim to non-conformity (the multi-genre paper), I have my students produce three “linear, print-based texts,” (a narrative essay, an analysis piece, and a persuasive essay). Why is that? Is it because, as Shipka’s participant Amanda noted, that that type of paper was what we are engrained with since elementary school? Probably. No matter where it stems from, I know my major assignments (and the scaffolding around them) need to change drastically in order to be relevant, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me; however, one thing that put me at ease in relation to Shipka, was that many of her multimodal assignments were not necessarily technology-based (thus, some of my worry about not knowing certain programs for multimodal compositions and not being able to teach said program effectively to students, was subsequently erased).
A brief note on the Pignetti article, it was quite refreshing to read something that was not, say, littered with the “academic speak” of the McClure and Baures article (prose that I myself am horribly guilty of as well). It also made me realize the breadth of possible dissertation topics and how (as a researcher) you don’t have to completely remove yourself for your work. Pignetti seems to skim that line between traditional academic discourse, creative nonfiction, and journalism and I feel that this genre-blurring is something which (although Composition certainly allows for it more than other fields) needs to be encouraged even more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i am suspect to teach something just because the academic world has been doing it for centuries or that it has been hardwired into us since elementary school - take the phrase "To whom it may concern" - well, this is an outdated form of addressed communication because we do everything we can to find out who to properly address the letter - but if someone were to have an open ended address, it should in fact be "To whom it concerns" because it concerns someone - regardless if people find the "may" to be the usual standard, it is incorrect - so why teach it or perpetuate it? i thought we were here to break down institutional mistakes our ancestors have made and create a free and better "concerned" society!!!!!
The assignment my students were suppose to have completed before class was a vision for their multimodal projects: Few came prepared but the discussion was lively anyway because one prepared student began sharing his plan others began to think about the scope and depth of researching the 2008 presidential candidates. This is my first try at an open-ended multimodal research project. I hope it will instill some enthusiasm in researching and writing. I'll know at the end of the semester.
Post a Comment