Main Ideas from Composition Pedagogies

This week I completed my reading of A Guide to Composition Pedagogies by Gary Tate, et al. When I began reading this text, Dr. Hedge told me that I would find pedagogies that spoke to what I was most interested in, and I would also find chapters that just were not for me. I found this to be entirely true, and I appreciated the freedom to decide which chapters to skim and not take into my philosophy and which to dive into with relish. I came up with a list of the pedagogies included in the Tate text that resonated with the type of teaching I value most:

• Expressive
• Feminist
• Process
• Researched Writing
• Rhetoric and Argumentation

I would put these pedagogies into two categories: those upon which my entire course of teaching will be based, and those around which I may design modules/assignments/units. Specifically, I see Expressive and Process pedagogies as the fountains from which all of my teaching will flow. I view Feminist, Researched Writing, and Rhetoric and Argumentation as areas of pedagogy that are deeply important to me and will be present in my selection of coursework.

Let me unpack this a bit. Expressive pedagogy and Process pedagogy are inextricably linked. Burnam and Powell state in the Expressive chapter in the Tate text, "Expressivists share some theoretical grounding with process pedagogy" (115). I would go a step further and bond them together as grounded in the same idea: a deep respect for the writer and the process, as opposed to focusing on products only. In essence, process pedagogy asserts that the process by which the writer does all of the stages of the writing process is more important in the learning process than the product she produces. I believe to my core that if I focus on being a better version of my authentic self, seeking to know and understand myself better every day, then everything I do or produce improves. I believe the same is true in academic pursuits, such as writing. If writers have courses that allow them time to get to know how they think and write, what all the levels of writing (from pre-writing to editing) looks like for them, and a chance to reflect on how their processes work or don't for them, they produce better work.

Similarly, Expressive pedagogy is focused on empowering writers to find their authentic voice and see themselves as contributing that voice to the human conversation. To me, authenticity is what drives truth and beauty. If I want to write well, I must first write honestly. Honestly may mean badly, and that is part of the process. But from honesty can come brilliance. I love the idea of creating a space where students feel empowered to learn and grow in their writing skills, transcribing their authentic selves into their academic endeavors. 

In addition to the over-arching themes of Expressive and Process pedagogies, I deeply value Feminist pedagogy, Research Writing, and Rhetoric and Argumentation. I think that all of these pedagogies still begin from a deep respect for humanity and community. For example, Feminist pedagogy focuses on social justice through teaching methods, including a variety of voices and perspectives that may have been marginalized. I believe this approach profoundly fits with Expressive pedagogy, because finding my own voice means listening to others' voices, too. How do we know what we think, unless we encounter other perspectives that challenge us? I think part of being authentic as a person and a writer is respecting the authentic voices of others and being ready to have one's underdeveloped theories challenged. Rhetoric and Argumentation pedagogy speaks to this same goal: to listen to and participate in the questions of our human experiences and debates. How can I make an argument or have an argument (at least a productive or intelligent one) unless I allow others to be authentic while I am authentic, and we work through our perspectives? It strengthens my respect for others when I have to first hear them and seek to understand what they think, then formulate and communicate my opinion in a methodical, clear manner, grounded in logic and fact rather than reactionary emotion. If I can do this--if my students can do this--they can use their words to make the world a better place.

So, where does Research pedagogy fit in this puzzle? In academia, we are often asking students to find out what "experts" or respected, "peer-reviewed" people think and write about a given topic. And while it is an important skill, students often lose their own voice and opinion in the research process. They know longer give themselves the right to think something, but instead begin to parrot what other, "smarter" people think about that topic. I think it is an important skill to go through the process of gathering information, ensuring its quality, taking in the ideas it presents, and then working with those ideas in one's own voice. I believe in the freedom to agree and disagree with the experts, as many people are experts until the next one comes along who disproves the first! Allowing students to research and work out complex issues while still hanging onto their own voice is important to me.

Overall, I enjoyed the Tate text, because it gave me a chance to give a name to the things I value and enjoy about writing. I want to teach from a place of authenticity, and having a grasp of the pedagogies that will enhance my ability to teach well is crucial. More importantly, I leave the text with a guiding framework that will keep me grounded in my philosophy when the teaching gets tough or I am struggling with imposter syndrome.