Response to Brooke, Nystrand, and Powell

Composition Jihad

While reading the Brooke article, I found myself quite pointedly reminded of the Daniell article we read for an earlier class, in that the Brooke article seems to presuppose that all students are oppressed and require professors to “struggle” on their behalf (148). My reading of Brooke is that there is a built-in assumption that in order for writing teachers to consider themselves “successful,” their students must stop thinking of themselves as “students,” and instead think of themselves as “writers” (149). My disagreement with this attitude is many-fold, and begins with an objection to the “we have to save them” mentality of the professorial body represented in this article. Apparently, it is the desire of such professors to save students from being placed in the institutionally-determined “student” box, and instead to place them firmly in the “writer” box, which evidently is more palatable to certain members of our field simply because it is a predetermined identity created by Writing Studies, and not The Man. For a discipline that professes (in this article) to run counter to the goals of the university environment, Brooke’s conception of composition studies reeks surprisingly of dogmatic partisanship. I think we have just been introduced to the fundamentalists of composition studies.

Also, I find the implications of Brooke’s “underlife” theory very troubling, indeed. While I can appreciate the initial purpose of this article as a means of expanding my understanding of the underlife behavior of students, Brooke’s discussion of these activities seems more supportive of the idea that students are being resistant in order to be trendy and nonconformist, rather than as a means of actual identity formation. The implication here is that underlife activity of this sort is much more concerned with not looking like a teacher-pleaser who “conforms” than with taking an ideological stand against that which violates one’s identity.

Effective Classroom Practices

Nystrand’s lengthy discussion of the benefits of dialogic instruction was revelatory, if also slightly repetitive. Even during the early stages of students’ education, fostering critical thinking skills and encouraging the generation of new (rather than remembered) knowledge is critical. Though I am unsure of the exact applications of such elementary measures in the teaching of composition at the college level, I have no doubt that the import of this article will stay with me.

I found the idea of making “public space” for student voices of particular appeal (15). As a person who has been a student for the last nineteen years, I can honestly say that the best experiences I have had in class were ones in which there was a back-and-forth interaction between all of the parties involved. The list of valuable experiences lost through monologically organized instruction is dishearteningly long, especially in light of the fact that such methods are still used so widely. Critical to this argument is, in my mind, the distinctions that Nystrand makes between students’ engagement in “procedural display” and “substantive engagement” (17). The difference between these two types of student engagement seem to lie at the heart of the debate concerning monologically versus dialogically organized instruction. As teachers, we have to ask ourselves a very simple question: Do we want our students simply to “do school,” or do we desire that our students are more fully engaged in their educations? A teacher’s answer to this question is basically an explanation of their teaching methods and beliefs.

Teaching with Resistance

My response to the Powell chapter is one that is connected to my personal experiences as a person of mixed ethnicity, who also happens to be quite liberal. While reading about Powell’s experience of the power struggle with her students concerning her position of authority and the goals she hopes to accomplish during the semester, I cannot help but wonder if I will ever be in the same difficult predicament, and what I will have to do if I am. The discussion on page 160 of the way a professor’s “accent” and the language they use affect students’ perceptions of them is troubling to me, and not just a little intimidating.

I found Powell’s discussion of the ways in which she encourages students to create meaning through their interpretations to be both inspiring and thought provoking. I like the idea of incorporating other mediums, including film, into the composition course. “Composition” is not limited to inscribing words on a page, so why should the study and instruction of it be so limited?

The inclusion of class discussions of race and gender give this chapter a kind of immediate significance, especially in light of the incredible biases that still quietly creep through the academic environment. On page 165, Powell discusses the need for “rigorous discussion on issues of difference,” not out of a need to embarrass students, but rather in the hope of broadening the scope of students’ perspectives and what they will consider. I think this is an important part of our field, but, as Nystrand implies, not the only part. I think it is important to achieve a balance between genuine student involvement and social awareness within the classroom. Now if I only knew how to do that…