Each of the readings from Haas, Hurley, Cox, and Agboka seems to point to the important and complicated nature of rhetoric, which could collaboratively be defined as the continually cultural and political negotiation and making of meaning along with the [possible] resulting action(s) of such process(es), including that produced by and productive of social relations.
The question I am currently considering: How can we engage learners in inquiry into and reflection of multiple aspects of their intersectionality (Cox 411) while avoiding the flattening of the dynamic and fluid nature of identities?
Ideas about and for application of each authors’ approaches in writing classrooms
Haas’s decolonial pedagogies (297) seems to provide an umbrella under which the other three approaches fit. These approaches to teaching, along with critical race theory, work to recognize and reconcile the various colonial influences has on our systems and selves while supporting co-existence of and conversation between/across differences. Within this frame, critical race theory can work to reveal representations and relational dynamics within various ideas and forms of discourse. Within the writing classroom, we can use activities like those of metalinguistic awareness to unflatten some of the rather rigid ideas about grammar and mechanics (see attachments 1 & 2 below). While these activities may allow for conversation about the cultural histories attached to grammar systems, they do not directly address the material bodies involved (286).
Hurley’s spatially-oriented approach to teaching and learning (133) looks more specifically at how where we are influences our own/others’ perspectives, ways of communicating, and the resulting pros/cons of rhetorical action (152). It asks writers to reflect on and articulate the social, political, and geographical challenges of writing for others. Within writing classrooms, this approach could be enacted in activities where writers can be encouraged to reflect on their writing habitats for various kinds of writings. Writing habitats can be defined as the rich, constructed environment writers create or fall into to get their work done. Writers could reflect on ideas like the following:
From Cox’s queer rhetorics approach to teaching writing (405, 409), I would really like to continue to consider how to construct teaching/learning spaces that encourage learners to take risks and allow for learning from failure. His reminders of the “benchmarks or processes that are familiar” to support learners through periods of cognitive dissonance (415) are significant reminders of the importance of scaffolding learning. (I also *love* Anzaldua’s quote on p. 412.)
I will be taking some liberties in my application of Agboka’s human rights approach to writing across/within the discipline, but in no way do I want to diminish its larger, more important implications. As he discussed the gateways his approach aims to open within oppressive, institutional contexts by emphasizing efforts to and need for “self-determination and liberation as well as the struggles against injustices and colonialism” (173), I couldn’t help but think about the smaller, more focused goals of the Digital Archive of Writing Instruction (DAWI) (see Attachment 3 below). Rather than relying on the rigid and calcified narrative that writing textbooks offer, the DAWI aims to be a networked space to share the voices often overlooked or under-valued in WAC/WID scholarship and pedagogy (writing teachers and student writers) while creating a more robust multimedia archive of the material practices of teaching writing across the curriculum.
The question I am currently considering: How can we engage learners in inquiry into and reflection of multiple aspects of their intersectionality (Cox 411) while avoiding the flattening of the dynamic and fluid nature of identities?
Ideas about and for application of each authors’ approaches in writing classrooms
Haas’s decolonial pedagogies (297) seems to provide an umbrella under which the other three approaches fit. These approaches to teaching, along with critical race theory, work to recognize and reconcile the various colonial influences has on our systems and selves while supporting co-existence of and conversation between/across differences. Within this frame, critical race theory can work to reveal representations and relational dynamics within various ideas and forms of discourse. Within the writing classroom, we can use activities like those of metalinguistic awareness to unflatten some of the rather rigid ideas about grammar and mechanics (see attachments 1 & 2 below). While these activities may allow for conversation about the cultural histories attached to grammar systems, they do not directly address the material bodies involved (286).
Hurley’s spatially-oriented approach to teaching and learning (133) looks more specifically at how where we are influences our own/others’ perspectives, ways of communicating, and the resulting pros/cons of rhetorical action (152). It asks writers to reflect on and articulate the social, political, and geographical challenges of writing for others. Within writing classrooms, this approach could be enacted in activities where writers can be encouraged to reflect on their writing habitats for various kinds of writings. Writing habitats can be defined as the rich, constructed environment writers create or fall into to get their work done. Writers could reflect on ideas like the following:
- How do we construct ourselves as writers? What are the spaces, places, and things that contribute to our writer identities and writing processes? Think about your process for writing this piece. What steps went into the final product? Where were you when you were writing various parts of the project? What are some of the tools you used during various aspects of the project?
- Based on these observations, how would you describe your writing habitat for this project? What are some of your essential objects for this writing project? What writer identit(ies) do they construct?
- Do they feel this construction is accurate? Is there anything that they would want to change? Why? Why not? How may one’s writer identity, practices, habitats, objects relate? Other factors? What is the role of technologies on our writing identities? Writing processes?
From Cox’s queer rhetorics approach to teaching writing (405, 409), I would really like to continue to consider how to construct teaching/learning spaces that encourage learners to take risks and allow for learning from failure. His reminders of the “benchmarks or processes that are familiar” to support learners through periods of cognitive dissonance (415) are significant reminders of the importance of scaffolding learning. (I also *love* Anzaldua’s quote on p. 412.)
I will be taking some liberties in my application of Agboka’s human rights approach to writing across/within the discipline, but in no way do I want to diminish its larger, more important implications. As he discussed the gateways his approach aims to open within oppressive, institutional contexts by emphasizing efforts to and need for “self-determination and liberation as well as the struggles against injustices and colonialism” (173), I couldn’t help but think about the smaller, more focused goals of the Digital Archive of Writing Instruction (DAWI) (see Attachment 3 below). Rather than relying on the rigid and calcified narrative that writing textbooks offer, the DAWI aims to be a networked space to share the voices often overlooked or under-valued in WAC/WID scholarship and pedagogy (writing teachers and student writers) while creating a more robust multimedia archive of the material practices of teaching writing across the curriculum.
attachment_1-metalinguistic_awareness_handout.docx |
attachment_2-mapping_grammar_activity.pdf |
attachment_3-ccp-final_product.docx |