“Freshman writing, if taught with an eye toward transfer of learning and with an explicit acknowledgement of the context of freshman writing itself as a social practice, can set students on a course of life-long learning so that they know how to learn to become better and better writers in a variety of social contexts.” (Anne Beaufort as qtd. In Fishman and Reiff)

I think this quote adequately encapsulates much of what lies behind several of the arguments with which we have engaged this semester through our readings. Several terms continue to emerge and overlap: transfer, social practice, and contexts. Yancey, et al.’s “Teaching for Transfer” course clearly argues for a very specific curriculum that takes a metacognitive approach to FYC and focuses on rhetorical vocabulary and a theory of writing. Freire and Dewey provide a foundation for social practice as integral for meaningful learning through experiences. The authors of the Multiliteracies Pedagogical Project argue for transformed practice as a student outcome; students should be able to apply meaningful knowledge to new contexts.

These terms, not surprisingly, also appear in multiplicity in all of the position statements we looked at this week. So why aren’t we getting it right yet? I think this is where Phelps’ distinction between curriculum and pedagogy holds applicability. We have been building upon constructivist pedagogical practices that work quite well overall, but we are adding in the newer genre studies, WAW, and discourse community curriculum as if pedagogy and curriculum are in fact synonymous. Curriculum is the framework; it encompasses both horizontal and vertical alignment. Pedagogy refers to the collective toolbox of strategies that are utilized within a curriculum (at least this is my novice attempt to summarize some of Phelps’ argument).

But in light of the fairly practical wording and approach of each of the organization’s position statements, how much does a clear distinction of these terms matter? Don’t get me wrong; I am certainly glad that there are scholars who have the amazing capacity to theorize the big picture here. However, as FYC instructors, our constantly overwhelmed mind and schedule doesn’t always allow for true reflective practice as far as this level of theory is concerned.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that my reflective take-aways so far are those repetitive terms and their direct impact on my students, as my current civic rhetoric: How can I come alongside them to spur them on to transferable practice and knowledge? How can I structure my class times to make writing a truly social practice? And how can I encourage transformed practice for a variety of contexts?

2 thoughts on “

  1. Ami Martinez says:

    Picking up on your question, “Why aren’t we getting it yet?”: That’s something I’ve asked myself as I’ve seen various assessment mandates come and go and the reason I highlighted in Yancey (2009), “[I]f compositionists saw this disjunction between classroom practice and testing practice early on, why did it take over two decades to shift…?” I agree with your distinction between curriculum and pedagogy, and, like you, I’m glad there are “big picture” people. I do, however, still wonder why such a disconnect seems to exist between what experts advise as best practice and what is actually reasonable to implement in the classroom. For instance, in our small group activity last week, which I did very much enjoy I saw a syllabus with potential for transfer, but it was so far from what I think students come to the FYC classroom expecting, I didn’t seem too much I feel I could implement with success. As with other aspects of life, I wonder if change in the field is better taken in small steps. To me it seems preferable than spinning our wheels talking about sweeping changes.

  2. Alex Nielsen says:

    Sarah,

    I really appreciate how you took Phelps’ arguments and tried to figure out what they mean for you at the instructor level. I also spent a lot of time this week thinking about Phelps’ article in progress, and how understanding these differentiations doesn’t always lead to more effective practice. Still, like you, I think the work is deeply necessary and challenging. How do we move forward? What do we take into the classrooms? What does curriculum tell us about social action different from what we know from pedagogy? I couldn’t say yet, but I do think, as you note, that it’s hard to integrate high theory like this “on the fly” in the classroom. Still, I think there’s advantages to thinking about these questions during course design and content creation (and considering how verticality might change those designs before they make their way to student hands).

    Thanks for writing,

    Alex

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *