Ahhh yes. Academy of Recreational Criticism hit the blogosphere on the 15th of July. Doc Hoc, Rhetorical Twist, Teacher Poet, and Lady Audley presiding. Here’s one introduction posted by LA:

Our blog name, aside from being so long that you really *have* to bookmark it (hint, hint), is pretty open to interpretation. I guess a good way to introduce myself is to share some of my thoughts on the idea of “recreational criticism,” what it is and why we love it.

Because we (the bloggers*) all care very much about our work and our field (English Studies), we tend to put a lot of pressure on ourselves. We worry about what our peers and colleagues think of us, what our students think of us, what our intimidatingly smart professors and department chairs think of us. We worry about the future and how on earth we’re going to weatherproof the cardboard boxes we’ll be living in when we graduate.**

“Recreational Criticism,” to me, is a reminder not to worry so much, because what we’re doing is really a lot of fun. We’re lucky to be doing it, and we should really take time to enjoy the ride. I hope this blog will be a place where we can spin some of the challenges we’re facing as young academics into something entertaining, engaging, and (of course!) fun.

Expect rants, anecdotes, thought-provoking reflection, book reviews, and maybe some recreational deconstruction*** if you’re lucky. Consider yourself fairly warned, and welcome aboard!

~LA, City U.

So, if you’ve “found the internet” while lounging on a desert island or are looking for compadres for your own adventures in English Studies…check out the ARC.

We had a bit of a scare a few weeks ago. As any consistent reader of our robot/cyborg army thread is aware, we have been slowly plugging away, quietly building our robot army. While some early plans were made public at the end of the last semester, the extent of our plans have flown under the radar for the most part. Then some serious storms blew through Kutztown and knocked out the stealth cloaking device we have our on robot army headquarters. For almost a day, our headquarters were exposed for all to see.

I know, it’s not a whole lot to look at, but we did the best we can. We are, after all, the emergent group in the English department. And frankly, there is not a whole lot of funding available for robot/cyborg army building.

We actually got some of our inspiration from Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. “Clones” had a nice irony to it. After all, the lingering dominant logic concerning writing and the teaching of writing is an assembly-line logic. Produce thousands of identical skill sets for the marketplace even though our globalized, digitized economy doesn’t work on that model any longer. Somehow, concepts of literacy–especially at non-elite colleges and universities–are still cast in an industrial mold. Perhaps this comes from the class distinctions still reinforced in our stratified (higher) education system. Perhaps it’s what Edward Bernays called the “retrogressive force” of tradition.

In any case, given the recent “budget shortfalls” for the PA State System of Higher Education–of which Kutztown is a part–I suspect that CRLS will be a punk ethic/DIY project. We will have to slowly reverse that assembly line model of how writing/literacy is articulated as well as slowly introduce our robot army into the department and university. In a perfect world, we could have created an HQ that called to mind Tipoca City on Kamino from Attack of the Clones. However, we quickly found that such an undertaking was non in the budget. So we settled for our little shrouded piecemeal HQ pictured above.

So, it’s July 21st now. That means just about a month before the semester begins. Time to shift gears and get back to building. It really has been quite a summer so far…and at the same time, I am looking forward to all this year promises.

Partly cloudy. 84 degrees. Slight chance of thunderstorms.

A little over a week before we were to begin Directed Self-Placement and the summer Connections orientation programs, I got this email from a member of the College of Education’s Connections staff:

As we understand the Connections “Writing skills” presentation, the students are allowed to self-select either ENG 022 or ENG 023 given their self-assessment of writing skills. Unfortunately, the College of Education course structure does not allow for flexibility in scheduling. If the student self-selects ENG 022, the course is counted as an elective. The difficulty arises because the COE does not have built-in electives- essentially, the course “doesn’t count.”

Would it be possible to not offer the ENG 022 self-select option to the College of Education Connections students? During our part of the Connections presentation, we do outline the advantages of using the Writing Lab, library services, etc. We sincerely appreciate the need for the ENG 022 course but hope that you understand the limitations of our program.

I thought about this for a long while. My initial, rather short response ended up accidentally in my “drafts” folder and never got to the intended recipient. As it turns out, that was a good thing. It gave me a little time to think more about how to respond more in-depth and to explicitly articulate the principles of Directed Self-Placement. Here’s what I wrote back:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I thought that I had replied to you last week when I returned from vacation, but I just found my previous message in my “drafts” folder. Sorry for that. I want to take a little time to respond to your inquiry and let you know how I have incorporated your concerns into my Directed Self-Placement presentation at this point.

Pragmatics: Given the way that Directed Self-Placement works, it is impractical to tailor the presentation to each major. The time I am allotted is packed as it is. In the past I have regularly mentioned that some majors do not have any General Education electives and in that case if students elect to take ENG 022, they may be taking an additional class.

Academic/Pedagogical Philosophy: Directed Self-Placement is grounded in a several key principles.

1. It is critical that students take responsibility for, or “own,” their education and their educational choices. Given that higher education is “elective,” students have to re-orient themselves toward education. In particular, they have to begin to become agents in their own educational process. (I have attached an article by Daniel Royer and Roger Gilles of Grand Valley State University. Their article, “Directed Self-Placement: An Attitude of Orientation,” is an excellent discussion of Directed Self-Placement and is quite close to our own perspective. When Janice Chernekoff researched DSP programs as part of building this process at KU, she talked with these folks and looked closely at their program in addition to many others).
2. Standardized tests and high-stakes essay testing have proven to be less than ideal when it comes to placing students into their first-year writing courses. Not only are these tests generally incomplete in terms of their ability to capture a student’s capacity to succeed, they tend to reinforce “deficiency” narratives among poor, inner-city, and minority students who are traditionally the ones who perform the worst on standardized tests. Students who are given the opportunity to make informed choices about their individual needs as opposed to being told what their needs are by some rubric or institutional means become agents as opposed to objects in their educational process.
3. When asked to seriously consider their own reading and writing histories, students will generally make the right choice for themselves. Put another way, guided self-assessment is a key skill that all students need to develop in becoming agents in their own education.
4. Writing ability is one of the key indicators for success finding a job and advancing in one’s career. That is, “the ability to write opens doors to professional employment,” according to the National Commission on Writing’s 2004 report, “Writing: A Ticket to Work…Or a Ticket Out” <http://www.writingcommission.org/pr/writing_for_employ.html>. Likewise, ACTs 2003 “National Curriculum Survey” found that “Even jobs that call for little or no postsecondary education often require strong reading, writing, and computer skills.” Perhaps most significant is the assessment of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich who was arguing as early as the 1990s that “symbolic analytic” work is key to our changing economy. As part of my presentation, I touch upon these issues as a way to stress the realities of our world. I would imagine that the job market for teachers would reflect these trends as well–you would know that better than I.
5. The mission of our university includes an access mission. With that access mission, I believe, we need to do more than “open the door,” we also need to provide resources, courses, and assistance so that all students–especially those students traditionally labeled “at-risk”–can succeed. ENG 022 is one of those resources that responds–materially–to that mission.

My judgment is that it would be a mistake to deny students who may become teachers (we know many students do change their majors) a key resource that may help them make the transition to college and succeed in their academic career. From my standpoint, I have the luxury of not having to advocate for one student’s major over another–I have to look at what I believe is good for all students (in terms of their composition course choices and orientation toward their college career). And I think that the pedagogical and philosophical goals of Directed Self-Placement are sound.

Having said that, I readily admit that my position comes from the perspective of someone who coordinates the composition program, studies writing, and guides students through their composition course choices. You and your colleagues need not agree with me or may make other choices. But, those need to be your choices. In other words, I think the College of Education needs to take ownership of the decision to deny students ENG 022 as a choice. I think it is even more important now as the College of Education has to make significant changes in its curriculum in response to the new PA Department of Ed requirements. For what it’s worth, I think you should make it explicit in your own materials and with your discussions with students and with the administration.

In some ways, this process is already in place. We know, for example, that many education students who elect to take ENG 022 are told later by their advisors to drop it and take ENG 023 because there is “no room in their schedule.” I would just urge you to see if there is another way–for the sake of the students. From my perspective, I think it’s worthwhile privileging the pedagogical and philosphical integrity of our students’ educational process over the more narrow goals of a professional major. But, again, I concede that this is only my perspective and certainly the College of Education is trying to negotiate many competing interests.

In terms of my presentation to students, I now share with potential students your request and my response (not at such length of course). Again, the purpose is to provide students with as much information as possible with which to make their decision. And, of course, students will hear your orientation and meet with their advisors as well.

I apologize for the length of this email, but since you were writing “on behalf of the College of Education Connections staff” I wanted to provide you with a sustained response that you can share with others involved in Connections and the College of Education.

Hope your Cycle I went well!

Best,
Kevin Mahoney

I thought this would be a useful follow up to my previous post! Still early. Still hot.

Summer is certainly here. Today and tomorrow will continue the 95+ degree temps, heat advisories, and all-around uncomfortableness. Barely into June and we have our first heat wave. I’m not a fan of the heat and humidity for sure, but usually I’ll tolerate it OK. This year, however, it’s a bit early and given how cold and rainy May was, this heat feels that much hotter…that “Bermuda high” doesn’t want to leave us alone here in Eastern PA.

I’m particularly preoccupied with the heat today because it’s the second week of Directed Self-Placement. Today, Wednesday, and Friday I will be taking 200+ incoming students through the process of choosing their first-year composition courses. The week happens to be the largest sessions of the summer. Based on past experience, the room we hold DSP in will get hot and stuffy. And yes, I sweat. Yuk.

We’ve altered the session this year a bit. First, instead of one big session every twice or three times a week for the month of June, this year we’re doing TWO sessions a day twice or three times a week. So far the double-session has worked out pretty good. It’s nice having fewer students in each placement session–I mean, I can actually see all of the students I am talking to. The comparison to class-size is unavoidable here. In the bigger sessions, there are gaps in the room so to speak. That is, it’s much more difficult to connect to students and hold their attention when you are speaking to a room of 200-250 students. Today, Wednesday, and Friday I will probably have 110+ students per session, which will be a little improvement. I am just hoping the smaller numbers (compared to last year) will cut down on the heat in that room. It’s bad enough I’ve got to walk across campus in-between sessions in the sweltering heat…if that room is hot, I’m gonna be a big ball of sweat.

The other thing we’re doing differently is that we are cutting the usual 5 minute video presentation (which includes the university president and two faculty members talking about the importance of writing) and replacing it with some time to hear “student perspectives” on taking college composition. DSP is part of Kutztown’s Connections orientation program for incoming students and there are usually about 15 or so students–the Connections staff–that staff the sessions, help get students where they need to go, put on presentations about the student experience at Kutztown, and generally serve as peer ambassadors for incoming students. During DSP, the Connections staff helps me by passing out the surveys, answering new students questions when they can, and collecting and counting the course selections at the end of each session. During the “training” session this year, one of the more veteran Connections staff suggested that it might be good for new students to get the “students’ perspective” on their composition courses–since, after all, they’ve been through it.

I thought it was an interesting suggestion, but one that comes with a caveat. During that training session, it became clear that there is a sub-group of this year’s Connections staff that is clearly anti-ENG 022. That is, anti-Introduction to College Composition. For example, a few of the Connections staff suggested that they were “scared into” or “knew students who were scared into” taking ENG 022 because of my Directed Self-Placement presentation. One student relayed that their advisor even told them that ENG 022 was a “waste of time” because it “did not count” for anything–a statement not even accurate (and for this I blame the advisor, not the student–ENG 022 counts as a general education elective). So, as I read it, part of the reason for wanting to present the “students’ perspective” is to dissuade incoming students from taking ENG 022. And, based upon last week’s sessions, that reading seems to hold true. In each session, at least one of the Connections students has spoken out against ENG 022 to “represent those students who were scared into taking it.”

This poses several interesting issues. Last week I described this situation as “subtle guerrilla warfare” against ENG 022 (and, obviously, my presentation of the importance of writing). However, I also know that part of my presentation (and of the presentation when Janice and Walt were doing DSP) has strongly emphasized the difference between high school and college-level writing. And to stress the seriousness of our college composition courses. So, I don’t doubt that I may have made some students nervous–”scared”–about college writing. And, some of those students may have chosen ENG 022 because they were scared. After our first session this year, I was tempted to “defend” ENG 022. I have since decided to take a different approach–especially after re-reading an article by Dan Royer and Roger Gilles about their approach to Directed Self-Placement. I decided to simply emphasized the importance of each students thinking carefully about their own reading and writing histories after hearing the presentation. After all, DSP is based on the principle that students need to take responsibility for their educational choices and that given enough information and opportunity to ask questions and self-assess, they will generally make the right choice (at least in terms of their college composition courses).

So that’s where we stand. My one concern is for the “at-risk” students coming to KU. What kind of impact will the new anti-ENG 022 discourse have on those student’s choices? Will fewer students choose ENG 022? If so, will we see more failures in ENG 023? We won’t know that until we run the numbers. But, the choice is still left to the incoming student. As long as I keep on bringing us back to that basic principle–that each student needs to think honestly and carefully about their past experiences and practice with academic writing–then we are in good shape. We will see.

One of the by-products of having the Connections staff included in the presentation is that they are taking on part of the responsibility for incoming students’ choices. That is, if there is a strong anti-ENG 022 discourse that persuades incoming students not to take ENG 022 and then some of those students go on to struggle in ENG 023, then part of that responsibility falls on the Connections staff. That is, a new student could come back to one of the Connections staff next semester and say “I thought you said I wouldn’t have a problem in ENG 023?” That’s what I need to be a little cautious about…I think I need to make those lines of accountability clear in my presentation as well.

Anyway, those are my morning, it’s-already-72 degrees-at-7am ramblings. When I get a chance, I’ll have to post more about some of the stuff I am reading now–English Studies and a book I just got through inter-library loan (and will order for our library now) Cogs in the University Classroom…the latter fits well with my robot themes of late.

My flight leaves at 6 am this morning, which means I have to leave Seattle at quarter to 4–yes, that’s AM–to get to the airport on time. So, it’s about quarter after 2am and I’m up getting ready. Yuk.

On a better note, our panel went really well today. We had a light crowd–victim, no doubt of being scheduled at the end of the conference. However, the questions and discussion afterwards was quite good. It was a great way to end the conference. If you’re interested in reading the paper (at least the written version of it) you can check it out here.

After our panel, I went to lunch with Seth and Ann and then came back to my room and crashed. It’s been a quick turn around. I did manage to get out for a few hours to walk by the water and take in those spectacular Seattle views. I checked out Left Bank Books (a blast), walked down to Pioneer Square, and walked and walked. A good day. Now I just want to get back home to Chris and settle in for the summer.

Gotta finish packing. Dark, 54 degrees, way to early.

Ah…some good panels I’ll tell ya.  I ended up going to that new media panel and it was worth it.  One panelist looked at “populist rhetoric” and technology…especially in relationship to the current presidential election.  She was interested in the ways in which the “Internet candidate” seems to coincide with “the populist candidate” in the press and the rhetorical framing of the campaigns.  The second guy was interested in opening up scholarly publishing to collaborative Web 2.0 kind of texts–especially when it comes to considering those texts “legitimate” as academic and scholarly work.  And, the third panelist, an anthropologist, was looking at “the vernacular web” and some of the ways in which the new Web 2.0 is opening up more vernacular uses of the Internet.

The second panel, Rachel’s “transnational rhetorics” panel was fab.  Rachel talked about Zapatista’s rhetorical work in constructing openings and news spaces in civil society.  Katherine Mack looked as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and how the NGO, IJR was moving it’s work in supporting transitional justice across the African continent as part of an “African Renaissance.”  Scott Wible discussed Bush’s “National Security Language Initiative and MLA’s response to it.  And, finally, Rasha Diab looked at Anwar Al-Sadat’s role in constructing the possibility of peace between Egypt and Israel in the 1970s.  Both panels were well attended and the discussion afterwards was great.  I even got to see Lu-Ming Mao at the Transnational Rhetorics panel…always great to run into folks from Miami.

Anyway, I’ll keep it brief…I’m going to meet Seth, Ann, and Rachel for dinner for some great Seattle food and continuing awesome conversation.

Still sunny, 64 degrees.  Beautiful!

After several delays and longer than expected layovers, I’m in Seattle for RSA.  The bummer is that last night Rachel and I and a group of folks were going to get together for a little book launch celebration…but, alas, I didn’t get in until 11pm.  Good thing that Ken and Trish were around and willing to hang out for a while in the lobby of the Westin, have a few drinks, and talk the night way.

I’m just about to head over to the hotel to pick up my conference materials and scout out the sessions for the day.  I will be going to Rachel’s “Transnational Rhetorics” panel at four o’clock which promises to be fabulous!  There’s also an intersting looking session at 2:15 on “Implications of the New Media” which is calling me, I think.  We’ll see.  Our panel, “Responsibilities to Whom, For What?: Complex Audiences at Cross-Purposes in Labor Organizing,” is not until tomorrow morning…

I just got off the phone with Rachel and was happy to hear that I’ll be joining her, Seth, and Ann for dinner tonight!  Yeah.  All is not lost.  Rachel promises many tragicomic tales of her trip here and I’ll get to meet Ann.  Anyway, despite what you’ve heard about Seattle:

Sunny and a beautiful 60 degrees!

So, I come home today after attending my niece’s graduation…she’s graduating from pre-school…and find a box sitting on my front porch. What was in the box you ask??? Copies of Democracies to Come from Lexington Books!!

That’s right folks…we’re in print. The official pub date is May 28th, but Rachel and I got our advanced copies today. It feels so great…especially after such a long process. The best part of it all is that we’ll be able to bring copies to RSA in Seattle this weekend. We planned to have a little pre-release, party Saturday night anyway…now, we’ll be able to make it official!

After a nice five days in the mountains, I am returning to this electronic space to revise a draft of some of my reading. While it is true that the bulk of my time in the mountains was spent doing mountainy things, part of relaxing is having the time to read more of what I want to read. The last several weeks of any semester always take a toll on reading. Or should I say, reading anything other than student papers.

I read the bulk of Coming of Age: The Advanced Writing Curriculum. I say “the bulk of” because I have yet to read Sections III and IV which can only be found on the included CD-ROM. But, given that the concept of “the book” is still wedded to the printed page, I am willing to say I “read the book” while still quite aware that I have still have two sections of the book to read. In any case, the part of the book that I read has given me a whole lot to think about. As it turns out, I was in the mood for thinking about building, constructing, or, in that lovely neo-capitalist turn of phrase, “growing” our composition program.

snippets:

• On Lynn Bloom’s essay, “Advancing Composition” [in Coming of Age]

I thought it was telling that over the 50 years of discussions seeking to define “advanced composition,” she found that there was a consistent inability to come to a consensus concerning what “advanced composition” or the advanced composition curriculum is or should do. But what I found more interesting is that she notes that “The conventional academic faculty–not TAs and part-timers who teach freshman composition–with an academic orientation are the usual teachers of advanced composition” (Bloom 16); while at the same time, many of the courses and textbooks she surveyed were difficult to distinguish from the first year composition courses. Hogan’s survey of 311 American colleges and universities in 1980 and Shumaker, Dennis, and Green’s 1990 survey revealed at best little connection between “advanced” composition and the first year course (6, 12).

On the one hand, it makes sense why there would be little consensus among composition faculty at different institutions about what advanced composition is given the lack of an established “discipline” until fairly recently. However, what is more puzzling is the lack of connections between the first year course and the advanced course at each institution. That is, it seems puzzling that faculty would not thinking about the relationship between composition and advanced composition when they were creating the course.

That brings me back to the question: who is teaching composition? Bloom’s recognition that “conventional faculty” teach advanced composition, is also a recognition that “non-conventional faculty”–i.e. TAs and contingent faculty–are the one’s teaching composition at most colleges and universities. While certainly not a new observation, this fact only returns us to the unavoidable need of making labor issues an integral part of the construction of any undergraduate composition concentration/major. That is, I think one of the key reasons that there is a persistent disconnect between advanced composition and the first year course is because the same people are not teaching both courses.

And, frankly, the necessity to integrate labor issues into curricular development becomes even more so today. As Marc Bousquet so nicely lays out in How the University Works,

Thirty-five years ago, nearly 75 percent of all college teachers were tenurable; only a quarter worked on an adjunct, part-time, or non-tenurable basis. Today, those proportions are reversed. If you’re enrolled in four college classes right now, you have a pretty good chance that one of the four will be taught by someone who has earned a doctorate and whose teaching, scholarship, and service to the profession has undergone the intensive peer scrutiny associated with the tenure system. (Bousquet 2)

In this world, one can see those calls to “abolish” first year composition courses as an attempt to (as I have argued in another context) out-source service courses.

• Thomas Miller’s essay, “Rhetoric Within and Without Composition” [in Coming of Age]

Reading Miller’s essay felt, at times, like talking to a kindred spirit. I can’t count the number of times I’ve argued along similar lines. At the heart of his essay is a call for civic literacy: “This civic domain is the field of study that I hope rhetoric will reclaim as it expands its frame of reference beyond first-year composition courses” (39). Given that I want to leave campus and go home soon, I’m going to just post this longish passage from his essay that seems integral to developing our CRLS concentration:

A critical awareness of the process of constructing shared beliefs is essential to a civic philosophy of rhetoric that makes sense of what we value. The contradictions contained within this process mark the sites of controversy that can evoke a dialectical awareness of the negotiation of morals and mores. As students examine what is up for debate, how it was called into question, and why it is useful to view the debate from multiple standpoints, they can learn to value critical reflection as a means to practical action, rather than an end in itself. Students can develop this rhetorical stance by reflecting on their expectations about a text and its expectations about them, the experiences that validate and challenge those expectations, and the codifications of those experiences in discursive, moral, and social conventions. In other words, students can learn to question what is assumed, where those assumptions come from, and what gives them authority. If these are to be rhetorical questions, their answers must include action. Critical judgment is generally understood to be the end of inquiry within English departments, as elsewhere in the academy–which is, after all, a product of the Enlightenment–but our own tradition treats critical thinking as a prelude to practical action. (Miller 40, italics mine)

I’m checking out for the day.

Mostly cloudy with breaks of sun, 56 degrees.