Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:26:38 EST
From:         Bill Condon <USERLCBK@UMICHUM.BITNET>
Subject:      Standardizing Composition Classes

David Schwalm's questions are good ones--tough, pragmatic, realistic
questions that almost every WPA must face, particularly in universities that
do not commit sufficient resources to writing programs.  I look at those
questions and I think about the curiously linked fates of David and of Liz
Hamp-Lyons:  both dealing with the same old rotten situation, each coming to
an opposite conclusion about what to do personally in that situation.  And
for the life of me I can't say whether David's choice to stick it out and
make the program *better* within the context of limited resources, a
lit-centered department, etc, is in any way better or worse than Liz's
choice to tell them to take the job and stuff it.  All I *can* say is that
here are two people for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I'm mad as
hell that they have been placed under such contrained circumstances and
forced to make a choice between doing SOME good, but thereby perpetuating
the status quo, or depriving the program of their good influence, thereby
telling the status quo that it's wrong, but leaving the rotten system in
place.  It's a Hobson's choice, and both these people deserve better.

Back to the question of standardizing sections.  No one, so far, has
objected to the idea of making sure that different sections of the same
course teach more or less the same objectives or use the same curriculum.  I
don't either.  But I do object to the constraints getting any more specific
than that.  To me, a standard syllabus is imitatio gone too far, a kind of
sanctioned pedagogical plagiarism.  I understand the IMPULSE behind that
syllabus, but having worked in several places that used them, I can say from
personal experience that (1) they give teachers the wrong message, promoting
teaching as if it were a product, not a process, and (2) they don't work,
for a variety of reasons, ranging from the fact that the teacher who'd
rather teach lit. will just go through the motions anyway to the situation I
described in my earlier message--such a syllabus can deprive the dedicated,
thinking teacher of her/his most effective teaching methods.

I think the syllabus is not the point at which we can effectively establish
quality control over comp. sections, and I offer a couple of suggestions
that I hope begin to address David's questions.

First, I think a comp program has to establish that continuing to teach
comp. is not a right or a form of financial aid for those whose REAL goal is
to teach lit.  Continuing in a TEACHING assistantship ought to depend on the
individual's effectiveness in the classroom--and that means effectiveness
teaching writing.  Until that happens, I don't see the situation David
describes changing much.  But the good news is that TAships are often in the
control of the Comp Director, so maybe a change in attitude like that is
possible in the short term.

Second, SOME sort of collaborative grading is needed to give teachers in the
program a reason to talk with each other seriously about standards, methods,
assignments, etc.  We do this with portfolios, but other methods will work
as well.  Portfolio reading groups meet several times during a grading
period, the members visit each others' classes, they exchange copies of
their writing assignments, and they talk with each other about the
objectives those assignments are supposed to carry out.  Later in the term,
they meet with actual portfolios to develop scoring consistency within their
reading group (we also meet as a whole faculty to do this, but then our
faculty group numbers only 15-20).  Mixing veteran faculty with new faculty,
TA's, and adjuncts means that the Portfolio groups also serve important
mentoring and faculty development functions too.  New folks get close
contact with vets, and vets are constantly exposed to new ideas and
approaches.  both groups benefit.  And so does the curriculum, since any
teacher who is seriously out of line in the kinds of assigments s/e is
making finds it out quickly, and the inducement to change is powerful--the
fate of their students in the exit assessment depends on those students'
being able to produce writing that fulfills the group's sense of competence
or excellence.

Over the long haul, institutions must be convinced that writing programs are
valuable, that composition courses are not just cash cows--nor are they
courses that teach "what students should have learned in high school."  We
must make the point that we teach "college" writing--forms of academic
writing that students can't learn in high school, even if they want to,
forms that are crucial to their success in a college classroom.

Over the long haul, we need to involve more of the tenure-track faculty in
teaching writing to first-and second-year students (or maybe in teaching
ANYTHING to first- and second-year students.

There are probably other measures we need to take, but the hour is late and
this message is already too long.  Let me just end by saying that using a
standard syllabus to solve the problems we have in our comp. programs is
like using force to "solve" a diplomatic problem. It may work, but it
represents a failure of creativity; it constitutes an admission that we
can't really solve the problem reasonably, so we have to fall back on our
power to control a situation, whether our position is right or wrong.

Bill Condon
University of Michigan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU