Initial reactions to Bartholomae and Petrosky's Course

In Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course, David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky explain pedagogy and purpose while outlining the format of their integrated reading and writing course. My immediate reaction to most of their reasonings and practices is favorable. I buy into their interpretation of critical pedagogy and composition theory: writing creates meaning, using language enables language use, and incorporating student interest increases student enjoyment.

Beginning with facts from student experience, Bartholomae and Petrosky create a discourse community that is inclusive of diverse student identities. Centering the topic around adolescence seems both topical and approachable to college freshmen. They foster the creation of academic identities through the increasingly challenging work within their seminar course. The movement from facts (students experiences) to creating artifacts (the students' written work) to the critical counterfacts (the teachers comments, class discussions of student papers) allows students to begin to understand the work of an expert in academia: composing from personal experiences, generating ideas through classroom discussions, and situating themselves within established academic discourses.

However, I imagine that co-teaching this course could go either way: well or to hell. Depending on the pedagogical practices and personality of your co-teacher, I think co-teaching could become problematic. At the same time, I do see how having two sets of readers will benefit students. I wonder if this course would be better suited to a full-time faculty professor plus a graduate student to T.A. the course. I could see how including a graduate student would lend another perspective to the course work. Along with creating a more approachable intermediary for students, graduate students are in the unique position of bridging the work of a student directly to the work of an academic, which may be helpful to freshmen who are unfamiliar with university.

My favorite technique they include in their course is the creation of terminology, negotiating and defining what terms are important to their study of adolescence. I also enjoy that they then use students own work as a text, further giving students confidence through the process of publishing and having classmates read their work. Also, the increasing responsibility of students to facilitate discussions is something I enjoy and see as vital to the development of student discourse practices. I will steal all of these, or, as a friend labels it, add them to my "sponge list."

Competence-based 3 Week Unit Plan

Day 1: Course and Unit Introduction

• introduce syllabus focused on learning objectives (15 minutes)
• sketch out student and teacher expectations (15 minutes)
• discuss course trajectory, what will be covered and why (5 Minutes)
• Beginning brainstorming through quick writes or drawing on how students approach writing an essay, group and class discussion if time
• Homework: Read an article about writing, Murray's "All Writing is Autobiography"

Day 2: Reading about Writing

• Have students free/quick write for five minutes before breaking into small groups (5 minutes)
• Ask students to discuss if they agree or disagree with Murray's ideas (20 minutes)
• After 20 minutes, bring class back together and discuss further (25 minutes)
• Homework: Students find an article about different writing processes (perhaps from an author they enjoy, or from an academic database)

Day 3: Writing about Writing to Other Writers

• Ask students to write a letter to a peer about the article they found, explaining why they chose it, what it says, and if they use similar writing processes (10 minutes)
• Students exchange letters and discuss as pairs, multiple times. (20 minutes)
• Come back together as a class and discuss the letters and the different writing processes, perhaps introducing any processes not covered by the students (20)
• Homework: Students take the letter they wrote and the ideas discussed, and write a letter to the composition teacher about their typical approach to writing a paper

Day 4: Thinking about Writing

• Students turn in letters to the teacher
• In-class discussion of: writing as thinking, thinking as learning, and, therefore, writing as learning. (20 minutes as a class)
• Asking for personal experiences of writing classes, papers, difficulties (small groups-10 min)
• Exploring the purposes for writing: why we write and the forms we use (small groups-10 min)
• Exploring what small groups discussed and contextualizing the importance of academic writing  (20 minutes)

Day 5: The Writing Prompt 

• Discussing the writing assignments objectives: to discuss the student's personal writing process in the context of academic and social writing, using personal examples and academic sources. (10 minutes)
• Coming up with class objectives together while discussing tactics for writing and researching (20 minutes as a group, 20 minutes as a class and creating a rubric)

Day 6: Brainstorming and Resource Gathering

• Start with a quick write about a random topic, then ask students to write on a topic of their own choosing. (5 minutes for each)
• In small groups, students discuss how they brainstormed (writing, outlining, listing, clustering, thinking, etc) and which topic was easier to write on (25 minutes)
• As a class, discuss importance of connecting with your idea, finding personal interests and connections to topics as a way to develop your thoughts (20 min)

Day 7: Drafting and Revising

• Return student letters with comments and questions and suggestions for their writing process, asking them to consider if they will change or use the same approach to writing this assignment (10 minutes, reading and then a small reflection for their own thinking)
• Discuss drafting, organizing, how revising can be a continuous process and should focus on structure and content--not proofreading (40 min)

Day 8: Editing

• Last step of editing (10 min)
• Peer-editing practice (30 min)
• Self-editing strategies (10 min)

Day 9: Reflection on the Prompt

• Papers are due
• Ask students to spend 20 minutes reflecting on their writing process of this paper, considering the letter and class discussions
• Attach letter to the paper
• Begin discussing next unit for the remainder of class

Assessing Competence, Chapter 8

In The Discovery of Competence, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel redefine literacy, learning, language, and how we teach composition. Accordingly, how we assess student's writing must necessarily change as well. Based on their sociocultural approach to student competence and the emphasis on discussion, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel view teachers and students as part of a inquiry-based learning environment that necessitates assessment as a continual conversation between teacher and student. 

Assessing students through authentic communication:

1. Students write "to" their teacher, not simply "for" the teacher.
2. Teachers respond to student writers as listeners respond to speakers in normal conversation: synthesizing, restating, inquiring, suggesting, and understanding ideas.
3. Introducing and including students in academic discourse by encouraging conversations about composition between teacher and student.
4. Using letters! Students writing to teachers and teachers writing to students. 
5. Also, students writing and responding to other students. Exchanging letters that analyze writing and increase students' metacognition of their composition strategies.
6. When teachers respond as readers, they create a shared understanding with students.
7. Discussing learning objectives of specific assignments with students, acknowledging and incorporating students prior knowledge by talking about each composition's goals and how we might approach the writing task. 
8. Negotiating the course's learning goals. Students may expect teachers to assess and focus on correct grammatical and structural forms. Instead, sharing the view of learning language as learning how to communicate.  
9. Negating traditional roles of teacher and student: viewing teachers and students as collaborators in the knowledge construction. 
10. Using portfolios: a collaborative, conversational form of assessment that increases engagement with learning. Allows students to view composition as a continual, conversational, and creative process. 

Competence-Based 15 Week Course

Unit 1: Weeks 1-3

In a class based in Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's ideology from The Discovery of Competence, equipping students with a problem-solving approach to personal learning functions as the foremost priority. To increase student engagement with class topics, texts and papers would focus on the connections between sociocultural communities and academic discourse communities. During the initial weeks of class, class objectives and learning goals (for students as individuals and the class as a discourse community) would be established through personal paragraphs and class discussion. Reading articles about reading and writing strategies and processes would attempt to increase students’ metacognition of their own writing processes. The first unit would conclude with a four-page paper of students’ personal analysis of their approach to academic reading and writing. The prompt would asking students to discuss their writing process, identify an area they would like to improve, and decide on strategies to test out as they work toward their learning goal.

Unit 2: Weeks 4-6

Establishing the importance of critical thinking and rhetorical reading strategies, students would be presented with a societal “problem” and asked to think and discuss on it in class and in writing. For example, if the topic was personal freedoms, students would find, establish, and discuss a connection to their personal lives. Course readings from varying voices and historical contexts within the academic and societal discussions of personal freedoms would broaden student's perspectives on the topic, encouraging further individual research coming in the next unit. A narrative would develop out of student's initial paragraphs, ending with a four-page paper on student’s personal connections to the course topic.

Unit 3: Weeks 7-9

Continuing students’ introduction into the academic community, this unit would focus on individual research on the course topic. Students would be given the tools to access academic journals, articles, and research. Rhetorical reading strategies would encourage critical analysis of information. The focus would be on transforming the previous unit’s personal narrative/discussion on the topic into a research-based paper: identifying the importance of personal opinions in encouraging interest and engagement with academic topics. Introducing formal research paper structure and style, students would have their first opportunity at writing in a conventional academic context—unlike previous informal and less-structured prompts.

Unit 4: 10-12

In this unit, students would have the freedom to decide on their own topic for research, based on personal interest. Organizing the class into small groups would allow students to support one another during the research process: sharing strategies, discussing various road blocks and solutions, asking questions about each other’s topics and theories, providing feedback on drafts, et cetera. A final research paper would be required (using original sources found by students), along with a response to each group members’ essay. This response is focused on furthering the conversation, not assessing peers essays. The learning objective is to increase student ability in instigating discussion and also continuing discourse through engagement with others’ ideas.

Unit 5: 13-15

The final unit would be focused on compiling a portfolio to show student progress. The teacher would have provided consistent, in-depth feedback on student writing throughout the semester. Students would be asked to review the teacher’s questions and suggestions along with any peer reviews, and then revise each research paper. The objective would be on incorporating feedback into improving writing, while also encouraging self-editing and revision. Student work becomes the course “text” where students must critically read and respond to their own writings.

The first paper on personal reading and writing strategies would be revisited. The final prompt would ask students to reflect on their first essay and chart their progress over the semester in their (hopefully increasing) comfort and confidence when using language—speaking, listening, responding, reading, and writing. The final result would be a portfolio including: the original learning goal essay, one personal narrative connecting to the course theme, two revised research papers, and a final reflective essay—allowing students to be critically and analytically aware of their own learning styles and strategies.

Chapter 5 "Curriculum as a Framework for Discovery"

Kutz, Groden, and Zamel conceptualize curriculum as an environment for learning. By not looking at curriculum as a set text or agenda, we are able, as teachers, to create learning environments focused on discovery, both for students and ourselves! Set curriculum can limit teachers own engagement with learning, removing the focus from thinking about and incorporating critical pedagogy to the trap of traditional classroom composition lessons. But, just as students benefit from a Socratic and inquisitive approach to learning, teachers profit from constant questioning, assessment, and reconfiguration of their own pedagogical practices.

As such, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel have redefined composition curriculum into a framework for discovery. Language does not develop thinking; rather, meta-cognition and critical thinking about language--that creates meaning through language--develops students' ability and accuracy in language use. Composition becomes the means for communication. Our curriculum goals are no longer a necessarily flaw-free compositions, but compositions that communicate meaning. 

This concept of curriculum allows for interaction between teachers and students in the pursuit and creation of new knowledge through communication. Both teachers and students are transformed by collaborative learning. Our language becomes the means for learning, not just a set curriculum of what one "should" know. Destroying the concept of curriculum as guidelines allows teachers and students to create social, dialectical communities, posing problems and discovering solutions to the questions that are meaningful to their lives and interests. 

These environments include:

• exposure to a variety of language forms in a structured (but not static) environment
• topics that allow students to construct meaningful knowledge
• interdisciplinary practices and concerns
• multicultural content as validation for students' diverse backgrounds
• strong connections to the real world, when the work done in class holds purchase in students' lives, and the students' experiences bring new ideas into the classroom

The Discovery of Competence and Goen's IRW Principles

I see much similarity between the ideals set forth in The Discovery of Competence and Goen's principles in founding SFSU's Integrated Reading and Writing course. Both focus on the sociocultural aspects of learning. Students' prior knowledge is recognized and incorporated into the classroom, where they build connections between the sociocultural communities they live in and the academic communities they now access through class and compositions. Both centralize the importance of meaning-building activities, where language--writing, speaking, and listening--is used to construct knowledge and communicate in purposeful, pertinent contexts.

Remedying Remedial by Cognition of Competence

Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's dynamic approach to teaching language turns the standard, repetition-focused approach to remediation on its head. Viewing language and writing as the means for thinking, researching, discussing, and creating new knowledge differs greatly from the traditional approach of imitation and information, where producing correctly composed writing is the only goal. Instead, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel construct a curriculum framework that promotes cognitive skills and understanding through the practical, purposeful, problematic, and pervasive use of language in all its forms: speaking, listening, and writing. They propose creating classrooms that become environments conducive to learning, where active learning leads to literacy, fluency is the ability to communicate ideas and problem-solve solutions to questions students pose themselves, and teachers no longer view students as deficient. Kutz, Groden, and Zamel attempt to alter this view of remedial classes through the lens of language acquisition: students do not lack knowledge or capability in using language. Thus, teachers must help students construct more complex understandings of language upon their innate prior knowledge, using writing as a learning process.