Wednesday, September 19, 2012

I'm glad I had to take four English courses...


This is partly in response to the Downs/Wardle article and partly personal reflection so bear with me. At my tiny liberal arts college, Oklahoma Baptist University, students were required to take four English courses, including the basic Comp I and Comp II and two additional literature courses which examine some major literary works within historical, social, and political contexts. Complaining about these requirements abounds from students (as a student worker for one of the instructors of these courses, I saw my fair share of disgruntled business major responses). Also, I became aware of some tension between a few of the professors in the School of Business and the science division of the School of Arts and Sciences and the English and History department professors. Some had the idea that the Western Civilization classes (the third and fourth English requirements) were something of academic missionaries, converting students in, for instance, computer science into English majors.

Case in point, me. I began as a computer science major. I was a stubborn one, remaining in the program for two years. It took everything the English Department had to lure me into its clutches: I converted, I mean, changed majors after taking the fourth and final required English class. The classes made me realize there was some value in English studies. Some. Just a little. I realized that if I continued to work in computer science the rest of my life, even while making money (...a lot of money...), I might be miserable. While I am not going to complain about coming late to the major and really having to rush to complete my work within four years, after reading the Downs/Wardle article, I feel that if I had taken a Writing-Studies oriented FYC class, I think I would have realized sooner the value in studying English. I lied. I'm complaining.

On a smaller scale, this kind of a structure (and I am now more conscious of the differences between UIUC's program [which I feel, contains some of these techniques in the Downs/Wardle article] and my own college's), young writers at least become more familiar with their own writing: not only their strengths and weaknesses, but also their self-confidence. I may sound like a complete sap but the stories concerning "Jack," about how, in his own words, "I really started to think for myself" (567), and another student, "you made me feel like my opinion mattered" (573) it brought tears to my eyes a bit. Yes. It did. I thank you for your pity. But that's what I think RHET 105 or really, any other comp class should be about: about thinking not just writing.

But that's easy. It's obvious, really. How do we get there as incredibly inexperienced instructors? I think perhaps the key lies in a comment near the end of the article: "the course has the added benefit of educating first-year students, adjuncts, and graduate students about the existence and content of the writing studies field" (578). Maybe it sounds elementary, but the class is a learning experience for both students and teachers (certainly for this teacher), as much as it is an exercise on improvisation and adaptability. This is not what my students learned in high school and this is not exactly what I learned in my college classes --and I think it may be beneficial to communicate this two-way learning experience.

No comments:

Post a Comment