Of all the reading for this week, I enjoyed the section on Decolonizing Feminist Thought the most because the implications of this section extended beyond feminism (at least in my mind). I found myself considering the "West" and the "East" and allowed myself to react to my own assumptions about them. The result was that I stereotyped the "West" as a technologically advanced, economically superior, culturally and traditionally free space, whereas the "East" was a traditionally trapped, underdeveloped (in terms of overall human treatment), and economically weaker space.
Of course, a second thought had me thinking of the technology of Japan or the economy of China and realizing I don't entirely think in terms of my own stereotypes when applied to certain locations, but the initial thoughts are alarming. They demonstrate a capacity for assumption that may extend beyond "West" and "East", touching other subjects such as "Basic Writer" or students who are not native English speakers.
Two big names mentioned in this section are Mohanty and Narayan. The writings of Mohanty brought me back to our earlier readings where feminism in the US was considered too essentialist and supporting a single narrative (predominantly of the white middle-class woman). Just as African-American feminists in the US were asking for their unique struggles to be recognized as in need of assessment, Mohanty talks about how the "Third World Woman" is being generalized into a single narrative even though the history of particular hallmarks of oppression is more complex. This goes back to the idea of stereotypes; the "First World Feminist" is stereotyping the "Third World Woman" even though the application of those stereotypes does not necessarily pan out.
Narayan goes more into the colonialist stance that the stereotyping of "Third World Women" takes. She points out how the first world understanding of third world traditions is monolithic and poorly supported, demonstrating a lack of adequate insight or research into those traditions. These misconceptions are the building blocks of the first world call for action in the name of "objectified third world women". Narayan suggests that feminist thought ensure that generalizations are historically placed within the complex histories of the worlds they are attempting to generalize.
This train of thought made me consider how the composition teacher should take care not to generalize every student with a monolithic interpretation of "the student". Just as the "third world woman" may not necessarily be an object/victim of the traditions that surround them (perhaps seeing those traditions very differently from the first world feminist), so too should the basic writer not be necessarily objectified/victimized by the traditions of writing assessments or placement. It is important to understand the individual student and how they view their own situation as well. Do they know about their writing process? Do they feel that the system has treated them unjustly? Are they seeking agency within the school system, and do they feel like they do not have agency?
Answering these questions on a student level (and not a monolithic level) allows the school system to adapt to the students it is attempting to improve. Otherwise, it becomes a hit-or-miss system that is too rigid for some students to confront and excel within.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Monday, November 14, 2016
(Late Post) Constructing Author Voice
Don't comment on this post, unless you really want to I guess. It is late and I'm am doing it mostly for posterity (see what I did there) and to make sure I still reach my blog number goal regardless of grade!
THIS POST IS REGARDING The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members BY Christine M. Tardy AND Paul Kei Matsuda!
Many reviewers who responded in the study suggested that the construction of the author voice when reading is "natural and unavoidable" (38). The results of the study mostly support this line of thinking. With a majority of respondents either speculating upon or passively sensing the author voice, it would seem that this act is in fact bound to happen when reading.
If we take this premise as given, how does this relate to the writing classroom? How does constructing the author voice benefit or hinder the student? To answer this, it is important to understand the ways by which the author voice might be constructed by the reader. What factors into a reader's construction of author voice? There are 19 things that the study looked for:
- Breadth/Depth of Knowledge
- Choice of Topic
- Author Representation of Field
- Research Setting Description
- Signs of Author Language Background
- Particular Sentence Structure Use
- Theoretical Framework Choice
- Author Representation of Other Researchers in Field
- Particular Term Use
- Particular Writing Convention Use
- Signs of Careful Editing (or lack thereof)
- Consistencies/Inconsistencies in Writing Style
- Research Method Choice
- Patterns of Source Citation
- Patterns in References List
- Manuscript Formatting
- Particular Genre Convention Use
- Choice of Journal to Submit Manuscript
- Citation Style use
That is a lot to consider, but I'm mostly concerned with what will apply in the writing classroom. As such, the choices in red (above) are not likely to factor into assessment in the writing classroom for various reasons (writing classroom students aren't likely submitting to journals for publication, for example). The pattern I have tried to suggest in my choices above are that I am assuming less emphasis on higher level concerns in writing classroom assessment. In other words, I care less about field wide student concerns and journal submission concerns than I do about whether or not they are citing sources correctly or demonstrating grammatical and syntactic competency.
In reflecting on the previous paragraph regarding MY concerns, am I showing a construction of author voice already though? Am I assuming students in the writing classroom are not WORTHY of higher level concerns? In general, I suppose that I am...but students are also to be taken on a case by case basis. I would also argue that teaching what a majority of students will benefit from (and providing individual assistance where necessary) is simply more practical than trying to cater every moment to every student. A teacher can't possibly attune every class and every lesson to every student without sacrificing an amount of content, breadth, or sanity.
But, let us return to my original questions. How DOES the construction of author voice relate to the classroom? As I may have already demonstrated, expectation from students will influence what a teacher looks for. To go further (read, more individual) a teacher's expectations of a particular student may influence what the teacher looks for in the work of that particular student. A good student who makes a unique choice may be seen as "exploring new terrain" whereas a bad student making the same choice may be seen as "lacking knowledge of conventions" (good and bad are also potentially problematic designations for students, but that is another blog).
Are there benefits to constructing the author voice? Maybe. It is possible that knowing WHAT mistakes to look for will help a student who is trying to improve that particular error. A student's self-awareness of their weaknesses (which come up from, say, journals and self-evaluation), as well as a teacher's knowledge of that student's self-awareness, may allow teacher and student to work together to locate, discuss, and improve those areas. Are the hindrances to constructing author voice? Absolutely. A good student who wrote a bad paper or a bad student who wrote a good paper suddenly have imbalanced expectations of future performance (and lopsided assessments of students is problematic in itself).
THIS POST IS REGARDING The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members BY Christine M. Tardy AND Paul Kei Matsuda!
Many reviewers who responded in the study suggested that the construction of the author voice when reading is "natural and unavoidable" (38). The results of the study mostly support this line of thinking. With a majority of respondents either speculating upon or passively sensing the author voice, it would seem that this act is in fact bound to happen when reading.
If we take this premise as given, how does this relate to the writing classroom? How does constructing the author voice benefit or hinder the student? To answer this, it is important to understand the ways by which the author voice might be constructed by the reader. What factors into a reader's construction of author voice? There are 19 things that the study looked for:
- Breadth/Depth of Knowledge
- Choice of Topic
- Author Representation of Field
- Research Setting Description
- Signs of Author Language Background
- Particular Sentence Structure Use
- Theoretical Framework Choice
- Author Representation of Other Researchers in Field
- Particular Term Use
- Particular Writing Convention Use
- Signs of Careful Editing (or lack thereof)
- Consistencies/Inconsistencies in Writing Style
- Research Method Choice
- Patterns of Source Citation
- Patterns in References List
- Manuscript Formatting
- Particular Genre Convention Use
- Choice of Journal to Submit Manuscript
- Citation Style use
That is a lot to consider, but I'm mostly concerned with what will apply in the writing classroom. As such, the choices in red (above) are not likely to factor into assessment in the writing classroom for various reasons (writing classroom students aren't likely submitting to journals for publication, for example). The pattern I have tried to suggest in my choices above are that I am assuming less emphasis on higher level concerns in writing classroom assessment. In other words, I care less about field wide student concerns and journal submission concerns than I do about whether or not they are citing sources correctly or demonstrating grammatical and syntactic competency.
In reflecting on the previous paragraph regarding MY concerns, am I showing a construction of author voice already though? Am I assuming students in the writing classroom are not WORTHY of higher level concerns? In general, I suppose that I am...but students are also to be taken on a case by case basis. I would also argue that teaching what a majority of students will benefit from (and providing individual assistance where necessary) is simply more practical than trying to cater every moment to every student. A teacher can't possibly attune every class and every lesson to every student without sacrificing an amount of content, breadth, or sanity.
But, let us return to my original questions. How DOES the construction of author voice relate to the classroom? As I may have already demonstrated, expectation from students will influence what a teacher looks for. To go further (read, more individual) a teacher's expectations of a particular student may influence what the teacher looks for in the work of that particular student. A good student who makes a unique choice may be seen as "exploring new terrain" whereas a bad student making the same choice may be seen as "lacking knowledge of conventions" (good and bad are also potentially problematic designations for students, but that is another blog).
Are there benefits to constructing the author voice? Maybe. It is possible that knowing WHAT mistakes to look for will help a student who is trying to improve that particular error. A student's self-awareness of their weaknesses (which come up from, say, journals and self-evaluation), as well as a teacher's knowledge of that student's self-awareness, may allow teacher and student to work together to locate, discuss, and improve those areas. Are the hindrances to constructing author voice? Absolutely. A good student who wrote a bad paper or a bad student who wrote a good paper suddenly have imbalanced expectations of future performance (and lopsided assessments of students is problematic in itself).
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Bad Papers Don't Make Failures, Assessments Do
Theorizing Failure in US Writing Assessments by Asao B. Inoue
I want to begin by saying that I understand the premise upon which Inoue builds her argument. Assessments produce failure by labeling certain characteristics or qualities of writing as bad, and enough bad characteristics or qualities in a piece means the piece is bad and the writer has failed.
I also follow her rundown of the different ways failure is assessed through the cognitivist, sociocultural, and macrostructural perspectives. Cognitivists see writers as individuals unto themselves whose failures are a result of personal learning behaviors. Socioculturalists suggest that writing is raced, gendered, classed, and cultured such that a piece designated a failure is merely a result of dissonance between the home literacy of the writer and the expectation of the dominant culture. Macrostructuralists argue that historical events, laws, and legal decisions produce the conditions of failure.
Lastly, I understand her explanation of the psychological effects of Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance wherein a distinction is made between students whose behaviors are geared toward succeeding (Approach) and students whose behaviors are geared toward avoiding failure (Avoidance). According to Inoue, assessments produce the possibility of failure and failure has consequences beyond the academic setting, therefore students become more concerned with avoiding failure (and thus the consequences) than with fostering positive behaviors that better writing.
The idea that I struggle with is one that comes along with the notion that assessments produce failure; that is, if there are no assessments, no one will have failed. If we are to believe that such a thing as good writing exists, and it is our duty to help students write well, we must also acknowledge the reality that bad writing exists in the first place. Is writing bad not failing in the first place, regardless of whether or not we assess it as such? At what point do "room for improvement" and "failure" become distinct responses to a writing submission? Is "misogonist" only a failure to spell "misogynist" at the moment of assessment?
I understand the initial response to these questions is that the designation of "failure" does not exist until an assessment has determined such and such writing to have failed, whereas individual instances of failure are not the same as the designation "failure". That is to say, an academic institution labeling someone a "failure" has external consequences whereas individual instances of failure on a writing do not. Is it the designation of "failure" that we are trying to replace with a state of constant "room for improvement" until a student is finally writing well?
I will yield that the designation of failure does become problematic within the sociocultural and macrostructural perspectives, and that perhaps my resistance comes from my tendency toward the cognitivist perspective. A student speaking in his or her home literacy may be perceived as failing in communicating an idea for no other reason than the judge of the writing not sharing that literacy. This has nothing to do with the soundness of the argument, the depth of insight, the academic scholarship, etc., but only in the way such things are being communicated. This leads into the inherent fallibility of the judge (teacher, proctor, etc.) and a questioning of his or her authority to adequately asses writing.
I want to begin by saying that I understand the premise upon which Inoue builds her argument. Assessments produce failure by labeling certain characteristics or qualities of writing as bad, and enough bad characteristics or qualities in a piece means the piece is bad and the writer has failed.
I also follow her rundown of the different ways failure is assessed through the cognitivist, sociocultural, and macrostructural perspectives. Cognitivists see writers as individuals unto themselves whose failures are a result of personal learning behaviors. Socioculturalists suggest that writing is raced, gendered, classed, and cultured such that a piece designated a failure is merely a result of dissonance between the home literacy of the writer and the expectation of the dominant culture. Macrostructuralists argue that historical events, laws, and legal decisions produce the conditions of failure.
Lastly, I understand her explanation of the psychological effects of Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance wherein a distinction is made between students whose behaviors are geared toward succeeding (Approach) and students whose behaviors are geared toward avoiding failure (Avoidance). According to Inoue, assessments produce the possibility of failure and failure has consequences beyond the academic setting, therefore students become more concerned with avoiding failure (and thus the consequences) than with fostering positive behaviors that better writing.
The idea that I struggle with is one that comes along with the notion that assessments produce failure; that is, if there are no assessments, no one will have failed. If we are to believe that such a thing as good writing exists, and it is our duty to help students write well, we must also acknowledge the reality that bad writing exists in the first place. Is writing bad not failing in the first place, regardless of whether or not we assess it as such? At what point do "room for improvement" and "failure" become distinct responses to a writing submission? Is "misogonist" only a failure to spell "misogynist" at the moment of assessment?
I understand the initial response to these questions is that the designation of "failure" does not exist until an assessment has determined such and such writing to have failed, whereas individual instances of failure are not the same as the designation "failure". That is to say, an academic institution labeling someone a "failure" has external consequences whereas individual instances of failure on a writing do not. Is it the designation of "failure" that we are trying to replace with a state of constant "room for improvement" until a student is finally writing well?
I will yield that the designation of failure does become problematic within the sociocultural and macrostructural perspectives, and that perhaps my resistance comes from my tendency toward the cognitivist perspective. A student speaking in his or her home literacy may be perceived as failing in communicating an idea for no other reason than the judge of the writing not sharing that literacy. This has nothing to do with the soundness of the argument, the depth of insight, the academic scholarship, etc., but only in the way such things are being communicated. This leads into the inherent fallibility of the judge (teacher, proctor, etc.) and a questioning of his or her authority to adequately asses writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)