ENG 594 10: Looking Ahead (this semester, next semester)

Today’s Plan:

  • How Goes It?
  • Reading Review: Inuoe and Shipka
  • Review 122 Syllabus Exercise
  • Examine 123 Syllabi
  • Break
  • Syllabus Review
  • Reminder: No Class Next Week
  • Homework: Reading and Paper Day #2

Syllabus Review

Wednesday October 25th: In the computer lab. In the past I have done a workshop that focuses on sentences from the draft that introduce evidence. This time I’m workshopping drafts on both Tuesday and Thursday this week to make sure that everyone has workshopped something before we get to the final paper.

Friday October 27th: Peer Review Draft #4. Homework: I’ve made a .pdf of the Booth reading that I use to help students think about a topic for the final paper. Let’s look at that.. and see below).

Monday October 30th: After working through the Booth, I will have them develop a research sentence built around one of their papers (ie, which one do they want to expand into a final paper?). I will set up a Canvas discussion forum and have them submit two potential Booth sentences.

Wednesday November 1st: Computer Lab. We will go over the Booth sentences. I think it is worth taking a class period to examining these one by one, asking them what they think, and having them listen to how I respond to everyone’s topics. Homework: After discussing in class, write me a paragraph that explains what your topic is and what research you need to do.

Friday November 3rd: Library Day / Open Date. Homework: Canvas–write two paragraphs to introduce sources you will use for the final paper. At least one of these sources should be an academic, peer reviewed source

Monday November 6th: Library Day / Open Date. Homework: Canvas–write two paragraphs to introduce sources you will use for the final paper. At least one of these sources should be an academic, peer reviewed source.

Make sure you sign up for a library workshop. (Library instruction request form).

In terms of the open date, let’s take a look at the syllabus. I am tempted to do that day in the computer lab and do my MLA/APA workshop.

Things to Focus on in the Booth Reading:

  • Pages 20-22, your relationship to your reader
  • Page 30, dealing with inexperience (Burke’s Parlor)
  • Pages 14-15, finding a topic in four parts
  • Page 41, 3.1, from an interest to a topic
  • Page 43, 3.2, from a broad topic to a focused one with four key terms: conflict, description, contribution, development
    • How does X’s description of Y differ from A, B, and C?
    • How could X contribute to our understanding of Y?
    • How has understanding of X developed over time?
    • How does X’s understanding of Y differ from Z’s understanding?
    • What are 3 different ways of fixing X problem?
    • Why people who care about X need to start doing Y
  • Page 45, Page 49: make sure you ask a question worth answering
  • Page 52, one sentence, three blanks:
    • I am studying…
    • Because I want to find out…
    • in order to help my reader better understand…


Because I want to make sure there is enough time at the end of the year for you to focus on syllabi for next semester, putting together a feedback portfolio, and producing a teaching philosophy, I think it is time to finish with our course readings and compose the second Paper Day paper.

I have two readings I want you to do before writing your final paper. Both deal with the “future” of composition. The first is Geof Sirc’s piece “Serial Composition” and the other Kathleen Yancey’s piece “Composition in a New Key.” Dedicate a portion of your final paper to thinking about the role of non-traditional/multimedia composition in ENG 122 (Sirc, Yancey, Shipka). We have also spent time thinking about politics in the classroom and assessment–I leave it to you to figure out how to navigate those discussions.

I also want your paper to engage Inoue.

Additionally, you should engage a few of the readings below:

  • Inuoe, Anti-Racist Writing Assessment
  • Shipka, “Negotiating Rhetorical, Technological, and Methodological Difference”
  • Elbow and Danielewicz, “A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve Learning and Teaching”
  • Hairston, “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing”
  • Berlin, “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class”
  • Kopelson, “Rhetoric on the Edge of Cunning; Or, the Performance of Neutrality (Re)Considered as aComposition Pedagogy for Student Resistance”
  • Rickert, “Hands Up! You’re Free”
  • Lynch, “The Cultivation of Naivete”

Although he appeared in our first set of readings, I’ve also included Lynch above. I think, after our work on assessment, it might be worth it to return to his discussion of method, reflection, and change.

I am genuinely curious to see what connections you make here. Can we find a connection between Elbow and Danielewicz’s notion of grading contracts and Rickert’s theory of student resistance, cynicism, and institutional power? Does Inuoe’s explicit approach to structural racism and assessment contradict Kopelson’s theory of cunning–or is there a way to read them as complementary? Does Shipka’s rhetorical approach to composition align with Hairston’s “narrow” view of teaching writing? These are just a few questions that could bring you into thinking through these texts. My main interest, as you move toward writing your teaching philosophy, is to start identifying what theoretical positions (in both this set of readings and our readings from earlier in the course) ground your approach to pedagogy and curriculum.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.