It's time for me to be quiet. Not here of course, I'll always be nice and loud here. However, lately, I think I've been too vocal around the department. Really. I've just been complaining (i.e. bitching) my little heart out.
What is happening in our department is nothing that hasn't happened before other places; and, frankly, until it happens somewhere that actually pays me a salary and allows me to vote on issues, I don't care.
There is, however, something interesting about what is happening to our department. Last year, when this particular search was conducted it was because a desperation point had been reached. There was a job to do, but no one wanted to do it anymore. So, in spite of the fact, that the people who interviewed for the job were in various ways probably not the best fit. At least one of them was willing to do the job.
The problem is that very few people really knew or understood what the job really was. The job was presented as administrative when really it was more about management. This in no way implies that there weren't necessary changes to be made, there were. But, the changes needed to be gradual and they also needed to reflect an understanding of the work already done. Obviously, that hasn't really been the case; but as I said I'm done complaining about that.
None of this sounds very interesting until you think about it historically and professionally. Much of the current problem stems from an historic inability of our department to explain what does/is/should go on in the writing classroom. It was assumed that everyone not only knew, but also agreed what should be happening in the writing classroom.
Here are two examples the first of what I was taught when I first got here and the second of what the current trend is looking like.
The writing classroom is a space in which we can use the study of rhetoric to teach students how to think critically. This approach allows students to develop their own strategies for use when they are asked to produce other forms of writing. (See my post about service course.) The problem with this idea of the purpose of a writing class is that it is not very testable. In other words, there is no way to give all the students some sort of test at the end of 15 weeks that says, "Yes! They've mastered this material."
The current trend is to quantify what goes on in the writing classroom. We may still not produce an End of Subject test, but we know we will only have x amount of reading, and y amount of writing; and we will define objectives and goals until all the courses look the same. This makes sure that everyone from fellow faculty to the university at large can look at our information and think they know what goes on in a writing classroom.
The problem with the first approach is that is difficult to explain to outsiders...really to anyone. Even more importantly it's difficult to pull off well. What that means is that when you have a course taught almost exculsively by graduate students is that sometimes the course will go badly wrong. But, usually the wrongness of it all is what we learn from...both the students and the graduate instructor. The other problem with this approach that is specific to our institution is that it became insular. The running of the Composition program went back and forth between two individuals who thought that everyone else understood what they were doing.
The problem with the second approach is that although the numbers will all look pretty, there is no real way to quantify what goes on in a Writing Class. The attempt to articulate what happens in the writing class through quantifiable evidence becomes problematic when the numbers don't add up to the need. In our situation, this is also a HUGE pendulum swing. People who didn't necessarily agree with the former methods are just as outraged by the rash of changes as those who did.
The really crappy part of it all is that since those of us most affected by the changes are graduate students we are simply seen as whining, not as offering an actual critique. People think that everything will settle down when the last of us trained in the old way leave. What they don't realize is that by then, if the pendulum hasn't swung back a little, it will be too late. The Composition Program here is moving from one that thrives and is growing, to one that will stagnate and die.
This probably really isn't very interesting to anyone else. I just think it's fascinating to see the arguments of the profession, arguments that seemed sorted out and decided, play out in front of me.
Posts
