This where we’ll talk about Hesse’s and Selfe’s exchange about “The Movement of Air.”
I for one think that they both have a point here. I worry especially about the political or “turf” dimensions to what Hesse says, but I also think that Selfe makes a really good argument about how we need to be willing as good teachers to try new things and to expand the definition of what we do, or reclaim the aural tradition, depending on how you think about it.
One thing I wonder about with both of them though is they seem to kind of forget that students take a lot more classes other than first year writing. I mean, we don’t have to do it all in that class, right?
There was also a “webcast” discussion between Selfe and Hesse not too long ago. Alex Reid blogged about that event earlier this year here; it’s definitely worth a read to get a summary and his take on it.
I think they both do make good points. But I kind feel like the questions that Hesse is raising have no definitive answer. I don’t think there can be an straight answer to those questions because that will automatically do what Selfe warns against… valuing certain modes and perspectives more than others. They are constantly being argued over and we end up back where we started. And, as the field gets larger and larger, it just makes the questions that much more complicated. I kind of lean towards Selfe’s response calling simply for a balanced approach.
Me too, Dave! I found myself siding with Selfe for the same reason–I think balance is important here, as in all aspects of our teaching.
I also think the point Prof Krause brings up about the broader university curriculum is an important one. FYW courses are already packed full of so much material, and there is still so much more we could include. It’s important to remember, I agree, that students need at least 120 credits to earn their BA — that’s a lot of classes! — so incorporating multi-modality, aurality, digital literacy, etc. into the college curriculum shouldn’t be the sole responsibility of the FYW course/teacher, or even the English department. These are things all 21st century teachers should be thinking about as they develop/revise their courses if they want to stay relevant and provide effective lessons to today’s super plugged-in student population.
Speaking of tech-savvy youth, here’s a very recent article about that very thing: http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/04/05/ed-tech-leaders-reveal-keen-insights/
I agree Carrie, English FYW can’t be responsible for all this in one semester! No one could! I’m thinking it’ll be impossible to try and get through it in one year’s worth at the high school level, but who else will get involved? It would take a university-wide initiative and a lot of encouragement/workshops/meetings to get everyone on board. I know my old ELA department wouldn’t bother! None of them have “the time” to try anything new when they need to get from the Renaissance to the present day in so many weeks’ worth of units they’ve had for 20 years.
I think that what you say is an excellent suggestion, but getting willing teachers may be tough for a few more years. I think (and hope) this trend will change and as people see that they MUST integrate technology into the classroom, then their attitudes about the amount of work it brings with it will hopefully change too. I liked the idea of every department having their own FYWP, that would be super helpful in taking the burden off the English departments.
Let me also add that I’m not devaluing an open dialogue about these questions… they are certainly important and can inform our attitudes and beliefs. But, I think the debate is the valuable part… not actually thinking that we will reach a concensus on them. Okay… that’s all… just didn’t want anyone to think I was being a hater.
I was pretty sure you were a hater. j/k. I understand where you’re coming from on this, but I think there IS a need to try to push for some consensus as to the purpose of a first-year writing course (at least within a given institution).
While it’s fun and interesting to grapple intellectually with “what is writing” and explore the nuances of writing as rhetoric or writing as composition, as Hesse points out, the structure of a university doesn’t leave room for writing instructors to dabble around trying to figure out their purpose in the grand scheme of things. You’ve gotta watch it because covering another discipline’s subject matter can really step on toes (I can tell you that it’s pretty offensive to hear that English faculty don’t really “teach” anything that anyone else could teach, and I’ve heard that).
In a lot of ways, at the university level, you better be able to clearly articulate the purpose and importance of your curriculum – otherwise your program is going down.
I definately agree that a consensus should be reached w/in an institution. Some kind of focus needs to be there, or they are just sort of spinning their wheels. But to pretend that there will ever be a national or global consensus seems a little unrealistic to me.
I agree, too, Andrea, that a consensus is important. (I suppose that is what NCTE is attempting with trying to set goals for composition classes and such nationwide.) Students need to not be limited in their knowledge due to their institution’s more antiquated perspectives on things. In the same regard, a university needs the freedom to appeal to the needs of its student body and also teach things within the limits of their capabilities.
I am all about healthy debate in composition/rhetoric because that is what gets the issues pushed to the forefront and ideas starting to churn. That’s why I admire both Hesse and Selfe… even though I still agree with Selfe
The turf/stepping on each others’ toes thing kind of goes back and forth, it seems to me. It’s even an issue in terms of the subject of writing itself: on the one hand, we welcome and encourage WAC, but on the other hand, we want to maintain at least some of the discipline/turf for ourselves.
In the end, I think I’m with Selfe in that the sort of movies/audio/multimedia stuff we have students do in most writing classes does not go into the level of depth that would presumably be explored in other classes that specialize in those things– film classes, recording classes, art classes, etc. I also think though that a mot of academic departments have become a little less turf-concerned because the sort of convergence that is going on in writing studies– with all these media colliding in on each other– is going on in a lot of other departments/fields too.
It seems to me that Hesse is encouraging a definition, if you will, of composition. Maybe he would like to see both composition and rhetoric taught to college freshmen–as two separate courses. I believe I am in favor of that, actually.
Doesn’t it make sense that those who are most expert at these aural modalities teach them, and those who are most expert at the writing, grammar, linguistic modalites, teach those? I do agree with Selfe that there can and perhaps should be an overlap, but it seems that there is enough difference that they could be handled in two different classes. With some colleges now bringing back degrees in rhetoric, it would seem that, in order to be clear, both classes might be required.
Selfe’s response ends with this quote, “I wonder why the multimodal texts that we and students now so frequently encounter in the world shouldn’t inform some of the rhetorically based reading and composing activities we take up within our classes.” I felt like she simply left me hanging to end with this. I wonder what she meant by this specifically and if she does do this with her students. Is there an example?
Judy, I think she is essentially asking a rhetorical question here. What she’s saying, I think, is since all kinds of multimodal/multimedia texts inform what our students do all the time in the “real world” anyway, then they should think about that as rhetorical/composing activities in composition classes too.
I agree with everyone, they both make some really great and valid points, but I too seem to lean toward what Selfe is calling for, teachers trying to integrate these valuable and important literacies into our classrooms. Students need to learn how to use their voices as a tool and a means of communication just as much as they do their writing. Think about if Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t as powerful of a speaker, would his message have been heard by as many people? I was listening to his speech the other day with my 121 students, and we were all moved not only by the speech and its content, but by his ability to move the audience with his voice. The winner of campaigns are usually those who have a strong stage presence and speaking ability, so it only makes sense that we must teach this to our students.
But I do think Hesse’s point that “I’m to teach German but, noting the world’s economic drift (not to mention sheer numbers), I decide instead to teach Chinese, I shouldn’t be surprised if some stakeholders object.” And he’s right. If I am supposed to teach one subject I need to teach that subject and give my main attention to that one subject no matter how important I think this other subtopic may be. When he put it that way, I was able to understand his point much better. But then Selfe comes back with an argument that I just can’t deny, in this time of great technological advances and multi-literate nations, we need to expand our definition of what it means to be literate and make sure as teachers we are allowing students to learn materials that are relevant to their lives and will make them successful citizens. Point goes to Selfe
Hesse makes a strong point that writing classes should teach, well, writing; however, what kind of writing is he talking about? In his piece we read earlier he defined essayistic writing as going back to the original meaning “to try” or “to invent”. I don’t think the way most FYC classes are taught reflect this definition of writing – at least not how I’m interpreting it. Also, we may try or invent in a wide range of mediums. It’s difficult for me, as an outsider, to decide what is at stake here without knowing more about where these two are coming from.
Are you saying that if Hesse says that writing is a form of inventing, that students can easily write and invent through aurailty and technology as well as the traditional words-in-a-row text? That makes sense to me.
I think that everything we write is the words in a row type, it is just the medium that we are discussing about. Some think that the “new” mediums are not valid ones and that is what i feel Hesse and Selfe are discussing.
I think that Hesse is just really reinforcing the idea that comp should be only about writing on the page. What Selfe comes back with that I like is that we, as English teachers, are doing is exposing students to the idea that they can create things on youtube and use FB or other genres of writing. But we are not giving them all the tools and that is not the point. We can’t teach it all but what we can do is show that one way of writing is not and should not be considered better than another. For me in my classes is its all about conventions of genre. I can use all lower case and no caps on FB but not in an academic essay. Its about those ideas of audience, purpose, and intent as well as message that we are talking about here, and that is the message.