I found significant meaning in connecting this week’s chapters to my work with the writing program, again, and I also found a fun, new way to re-see theory. I am going to sound all formal and say: In this post, I will explore how
I have noticed that I tend to have a bit of a scholarship crush on James Porter, but his chapter on rhetorical theory and tech comm wasn’t as exciting as I expected. I did enjoy his unpacking of what theory is. Here is the fun part: eventually, I just ended up replacing the work theory with Stephanie: “What does Steph do? She attempts to arrive at knowledge or understanding by questioning, critiquing, and problematizing something that we normally think or do…” (130). For me, it works out to be a wonderful metaphor. This embodiment of theory actually helped me understand it in a new and fun way. (Thank you, Steph and theory!)
Longo and Fountain’s discussion of genres and documents as entities that both direct human action and provide a peek into that action (174) directly aligns with much of the thinking I have been doing while working with faculty in their disciplines on teaching writing in that discipline. Their three-question heuristic (175-176) made me wonder how WPAs benefit from utilizing it. (I also wonder how/if this heuristic affected if you are not focusing on a ‘technical’ field, but that seems like a whole other conversation.) Their questions are
I started thinking about how these questions could [not] be adapted for working with faculty from across the disciplines, which reminded me of an activity that I developed and used this summer in the Advanced WAC Academy called “Writing in different disciplines is different” (see Appendix 1 attached below). This activity aims to create a thoughtful and embodied experience to (re)consider writing in one’s discipline. Three of the central questions of the activity are
The similarities in the three sets of questions struck me as much as the differences. Both serve similar purposes: 1. facilitating practitioner's reflections on cultural and organizational histories and 2. offering a 'big picture' view of what they do and what/how they write (175). Both are a kind of praxis.
The difference I am currently focusing on an individual's [the lack of] agency in the differing contexts. While we can reflect on, alter and have an impact on our local workplace settings, disciplines or fields are set in an institutional frame that is, overall, more resistant to and slower to change. Therefore, I can see how these sets of questions may be working at different ends of the same general purpose. Longo and Fountain’s questions provide a starting place in the local that has broader, institutional or disciplinary implications and the three questions from "Writing in different disciplines is different" starts by looking at the disciplinary level and works toward the local.
Mehlenbacher’s deconstruction and eventual demolishing of expertise (193) fueled a fire I have been stoking I have been considering for a while in the expert/novice binary that is prevalent in much WAC/WID pedagogy and professional development. For example, there is an activity that I borrowed from transfer scholarship called “Novice/Expert Interview” (see Appendix 2 attached below). The purpose of the activity is to provide a time and space for individuals to re-see what they say, do, and value on a daily basis and unpack an important intellectual process associated with writing in their discipline.
While the activity has been reported to be useful by participants, I have personally been hung up on the binary on which it is based. As Mehlenbacher argues, there is much to value of a beginner’s mind. So the question, for me, is this: [how] can this activity be revised or adapted to facilitate the unpacking of everyday knowledge that is often overlooked by faculty while highlighting or emphasizing the value of an absolute beginner? As I am typing this, I am wondering if it already does and I am just hung up on the name of the activity…
I am going to continue to think about it.
- Porter’s chapter helped me re-see theory by personifying it as one of my best friends (Steph) and how
- Both Longo and Fountain and Mehlenbacher’s chapters caused me to reconsider some of the WAC/WID professional development activities from a tech comm perspective.
I have noticed that I tend to have a bit of a scholarship crush on James Porter, but his chapter on rhetorical theory and tech comm wasn’t as exciting as I expected. I did enjoy his unpacking of what theory is. Here is the fun part: eventually, I just ended up replacing the work theory with Stephanie: “What does Steph do? She attempts to arrive at knowledge or understanding by questioning, critiquing, and problematizing something that we normally think or do…” (130). For me, it works out to be a wonderful metaphor. This embodiment of theory actually helped me understand it in a new and fun way. (Thank you, Steph and theory!)
Longo and Fountain’s discussion of genres and documents as entities that both direct human action and provide a peek into that action (174) directly aligns with much of the thinking I have been doing while working with faculty in their disciplines on teaching writing in that discipline. Their three-question heuristic (175-176) made me wonder how WPAs benefit from utilizing it. (I also wonder how/if this heuristic affected if you are not focusing on a ‘technical’ field, but that seems like a whole other conversation.) Their questions are
- What systems of order does my workplace create?
- How does the history and culture of my workplace influence this process of ordering?
- How will my decisions in this workplace shape and order the actions of others?
I started thinking about how these questions could [not] be adapted for working with faculty from across the disciplines, which reminded me of an activity that I developed and used this summer in the Advanced WAC Academy called “Writing in different disciplines is different” (see Appendix 1 attached below). This activity aims to create a thoughtful and embodied experience to (re)consider writing in one’s discipline. Three of the central questions of the activity are
- What are the questions or kinds of problems your discipline takes up?
- What kind of evidence counts and is valued in your discipline?
- What are the genres or types of writing your discipline uses to make knowledge?
The similarities in the three sets of questions struck me as much as the differences. Both serve similar purposes: 1. facilitating practitioner's reflections on cultural and organizational histories and 2. offering a 'big picture' view of what they do and what/how they write (175). Both are a kind of praxis.
The difference I am currently focusing on an individual's [the lack of] agency in the differing contexts. While we can reflect on, alter and have an impact on our local workplace settings, disciplines or fields are set in an institutional frame that is, overall, more resistant to and slower to change. Therefore, I can see how these sets of questions may be working at different ends of the same general purpose. Longo and Fountain’s questions provide a starting place in the local that has broader, institutional or disciplinary implications and the three questions from "Writing in different disciplines is different" starts by looking at the disciplinary level and works toward the local.
Mehlenbacher’s deconstruction and eventual demolishing of expertise (193) fueled a fire I have been stoking I have been considering for a while in the expert/novice binary that is prevalent in much WAC/WID pedagogy and professional development. For example, there is an activity that I borrowed from transfer scholarship called “Novice/Expert Interview” (see Appendix 2 attached below). The purpose of the activity is to provide a time and space for individuals to re-see what they say, do, and value on a daily basis and unpack an important intellectual process associated with writing in their discipline.
While the activity has been reported to be useful by participants, I have personally been hung up on the binary on which it is based. As Mehlenbacher argues, there is much to value of a beginner’s mind. So the question, for me, is this: [how] can this activity be revised or adapted to facilitate the unpacking of everyday knowledge that is often overlooked by faculty while highlighting or emphasizing the value of an absolute beginner? As I am typing this, I am wondering if it already does and I am just hung up on the name of the activity…
I am going to continue to think about it.
appendix_1-writing_is_different.pdf |
appendix_2-novice-expert.pdf |