Teaching Rationale

I believe that the privilege of teaching rhetoric and composition to college freshman

comes with a tremendous responsibility. The freshman composition course may be the only

writing class that students take while working to earn their bachelors degree. Yet, these

students will be required to produce academic writing in their various fields of study, no matter

what the discipline is. Combining my own experiences as a college student with the ideas of

experts in the field of composition, I have developed a philosophy towards teaching writing to

college freshman that responds to this demand. I believe that composition must transcend the

ability to effectively translate ones thoughts onto paper. A successful student needs to have the

proper writing skills necessary to construct meaning. For this reason, my teaching methods are

firmly grounded in a pedagogy that actively engages a relationship between critical reading and

writing. By using reading to conduct inquiry inside the writing, through summary and

paraphrasing, and by identifying strategies of form through the rhetorical development of the

argument, students can accomplish the dual ability to read effectively and incorporate textual

meaning into their writing. As Ellen Carillo warns, by neglecting this relationship, both

writing and reading become about finding and extracting (someone elses) meaning rather than

composing ones own (22). The value of building a writing curriculum based on this

combination can accomplish the tremendous responsibility I indicate at the start of this rationale;

to transfer a students capacity for successful academic writing beyond the freshman composition

class.

To implement a successful curriculum, I believe in an approachable and friendly

classroom environment. Composition instructors do not exist on a platform behind a lectern, they

interact on a direct basis with their students. This relationship extends beyond the class to the
uniquely significant rapport we can develop with the individual. Thus, we are required to know

more about our students than simply their name. We need to understand what kind of knowledge

they bring from their former academic experience. Have they mastered, yet gotten stuck in the

5 paragraph essay format? Are they completely invested in the notion of their teacher as the

only audience they are writing for? Have grades created a writers block that disables them from

engaging in ideas? In the freshman composition class, we are essentially asking our students to

acquire a new language, and knowing how they have approached learning is a necessary

component of this endeavor. In his seminal work, Inventing the University, David

Bartholomae discusses the challenges for a freshman presented with the rules of academic

discourse explaining, they must dare to speak it, or to carry off the bluff, since speaking and

writing will most certainly be required long before the skill is learned (5). This requires a

sensitivity on our part that expands our awareness of the freshman as we encounter more difficult

issues.

And this is just the beginning of our task in appreciating what these students bring to the

college classroom. The university community continues to grow more diverse, and this fact

contributes significantly to how learning will occur. We need to recognize the social barriers

already in place that distinguish learning between lower and middle income families. Lisa

Delpits classroom study of students from economically diverse homes demonstrates how

something as simple as writing a thank-you note for a gift can impact a students approach to

learning. She explains that many basic linguistic conventions such as this are conceptualized in

middle-class society, and work as an advantage when faced with learning about writing with

sentences that [are] meaningless, decontextualized statements you find in workbooks and on the

blackboard (222). While I do not embrace the extreme practices of the code switching/code
meshing movement, championed by scholars such as Vershawn Young and Suresh Canagarajah

and meant to empower marginalized populations, I am grateful for the opportunity to be

informed about it to better realize the essence of my students unique backgrounds.

These valuable principles inform the way I approach my students, and they reflect the

foundation of where my teaching begins. Despite the method of placement that may leave some

students at a disadvantage, my classroom becomes a democratic space that requires the same

level of effort and engagement from each student. I make my scholastic goals clear from the first

day, telling my students that I hope to arm each of them with a greater toolbox of writing skills

by the end of the semester. My initial method of assessment, an in-class response to an article

they have not read, provides me with a realistic snapshot of the class writing level and tends to

discourage the impulse to move too far, too fast. I like to begin with an informal conversation

about academic habits of mind, that can help students start thinking about the language we will

use in class. This discussion introduces students to the meaning of academic curiosity, or the

need to ask provocative questions, generate hypotheses, respond to others ideas and do

research to learn more information (Axelrod 1). I continue with critical analysis, focusing on

the way that ideas are supported by evidence that must be challenged to determine a writers

assumptions, based on their values and beliefs. I conclude with the typically unfamiliar concept

of rhetorical sensitivity, presenting to students the elements to recognize behind the purpose of

writing, including audience and genre. Keeping in mind that my goal is to make learning

accessible for the students, I avoid the temptation to welcome students into the academic

conversation. I apply Gerald Graffs counsel that students dont really give[s] a fig about the

academic conversation which is often a bad conversation, boring and self-important, and

dominated by insider orthodoxies (38). Instead, I relate to them on a personal level. Simply
put, I encourage their growth as informed public citizens who reject sound-bite based

knowledge, explaining that the power of academic writing lies in exposing and tackling

contemporary issues.

My teaching rationale is based on a practical intent that concerns itself with providing the

most effective lessons to produce a good writing product. However, I recognize that an essential

goal for a writing course is to help students develop an effective writing process (Clark 1). A

significant component of this process includes lessons that encompass the rhetorical situation,

focusing attention on the idea of exigence. This type of instruction enables the student to learn

what makes an idea convincing and what sort of evidence and authority contributes to making it

so (8). I employ a variety of non-fiction reading to model what good writing looks like. I do

not use literary works because I am not teaching a literature class, where writing becomes

about the texts being read and about literariness-not about student writing and its

development (Hesse 51). A typical lesson consists of assigning a short text I think this is

crucial because many students simply do not do the required reading, which then perverts the

whole lesson! Students are asked to engage with the text in various ways. They may produce a

short summary, respond to reactions about an idea in the text or delve deeper into an analysis of

assumptions that the text is making. As the semester progresses, I introduce more sophisticated

methods of engagement, including annotating, outlining, synthesizing ideas, identifying

figurative language, comparing and contrasting, recognizing logical fallacies and judging the

writers credibility. While students have been exposed to many of these elements, I continually

assess work that justifies a demand for multiple practice, evidenced by such things as paragraphs

that still do not follow a specific discussion linked back to a solid topic sentence, or the

misinterpretation of complex ideas presented in a reading.

 In preparing for a completed essay assignment, I employ a strategy of composing

stages including prewriting, writing and rewriting. The prewriting stage consists of free-

writing exercises, assigned at the beginning of each class, usually in response to homework

reading assignments. The purpose of this low stakes work is to initiate a writing habit, and

freewriting is a ritual that can elicit possible subjects to which the conscious mind may not have

easy access (Glenn and Goldthwaite 180). I introduce in-class exercises that integrate the more

challenging process of invention, empowering students to reach into their store of experience

and/or knowledge that is sufficient enough to generate ideas, either through the imagination or a

quest for information (Clark 48). The classroom becomes a place for generating ideas,

especially in group work that enables fostering insight that will stimulate the imagination (58).

As a class, we brainstorm topics by asking the five journalist questions to discover avenues of

controversy that can help students form a position.

The writing stage includes a process of scaffolding exercises such as summary, annotated

bibliographies and working outlines, to help generate a rough draft. For the argument essay, I

take advantage of templates from professional composition sources that can effectively direct a

students discover process. My current textbook choice, Reading Critically, Writing Well, guides

the papers development by asking students to think about and respond to basic questions such

as, What is the issue and why should your readers be concerned about it, Why are popular

approaches or attitudes inappropriate or inadequate, How has the issue, or peoples opinions

about the issue, changed? What makes the issue important now, and What fundamental

differences in worldview of experience might keep you and your readers from agreeing?

(Axelrod 345). These questions put the concepts of the rhetorical situation into practice, and ask

students to think about exigence, purpose and audience. As students grapple with the logical
flow of ideas, these key factors can help create a solid frame. My years as a writing consultant

have demonstrated that structure tends to be a difficult part of composing, and most students I

have tutored walk away with a renewed sense of confidence once this piece of the process is in

place.

I emphasize to my students that writing is a recursive process, and I constantly reinforce

the importance of the rewriting stage. It is necessary to understand the thought process of the

student, however, in order to implement effective revision. Nancy Sommers writes that, At

best, the students see their writing altogether passively through the eyes of former teachers or

their surrogates, the textbooks, and are bound to the rules which they have been taught (201).

Taking this into consideration, my revision process involves a series of activities. Through trial

and error, I have found that the most well-intentioned peer editing criteria never allows for

successful evaluation. Most students confidently say yes when asked if their colleagues

comments are helpful, only to dismiss them completely when revising. I discovered the

tremendously effective Paired Interview Questions, compiled by John Bean (293). The

success of this activity lies in having writers talk through their ideas with their partners, and

having interviewers keep the talker on task by asking probing questions or playing devils

advocate (293). Students can verbalize concrete details they needed to address in their revision.

Finally, I believe that nothing can compare to the power of one-on-one conferencing.

Experience in the Writing Center has given me valuable skills in making comments that do not

appropriate the students work. Like the Bean activity, I allow the student to verbalize their

thesis. Their inability to adequately express their thought process exposes weaknesses in the

paper and becomes the impetus for revision work.

 My teaching rationale continues to evolve. I am grateful for the solid foundation I

received during my Teaching Associate training and am indebted to the accomplished Dr. Irene

Clark for her expert guidance and exposure to the leading theorist in the field of composition.

Teaching connects to a sense of second nature for me, and I have been privileged to work with

students who show up to class engaged and eager to learn. I believe that my teaching experience

is collaborative; I have learned much from my students during the process of instructing them in

the field of composition.

Works Cited

Axelrod, Rise B., Charles R. Cooper and Allison M. Warriner, editors. Reading Critically,

Writing Well, A Reader and Guide, Eleventh Edition. Bedford/St. Martin, 2017.
Bean, John. Engaging Ideas, The Professors Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking,

and Active Learning in the Classroom, Second Edition. Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Bartholomae, David. Inventing the University. Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 5, no. 1, 1986,

pp. 4-23. www.jstor.org/stable/43443456

Clark, Irene. Concepts in Composition, Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, 2nd

Edition. Routledge, 2012.

Delpit, Lisa. Lessons from Teachers. Journal of Teacher Educations, vol. 57, no. 3, June,

2006, pp. 220-231. DOI: 10.1177/0022487105285966

Glenn, Cheryl and Melissa A. Goldthwaithe. The St. Martins Guide to Teaching Writing, 7th

Edition, Bedford, St, Martins, 2014.

Graff, Gerald. From Clueless in Academia. Johnson, pp. 31-57.

Hesse, Douglas. Occasions, Sources, and Strategies. Lunsford, Ronald F. and Deborah

Coxwell-Teague. First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice. Parlor Press, 2014.

Lauer Series in Rhetoric and Composition. EBSCOhost,

libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nle

bk&AN=1002602&site=ehost-live.

Johnson, T.R, editor. Teaching Composition, Background Readings, Bedford, St. Martins, 2008.

Sommers, Nancy. Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.

Johnson, pp. 195-205.