|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2007A12SkinnellA.12: “Selling Ideas or Selling Out?: Negotiating Identities in the Writing of Composition Textbooks” This session comprised four textbook authors—Leonard Rosen, Robert Yagelski, Bruce Ballenger and Michelle Payne—and, as the session title indicates, these authors remain dedicated to the defense of textbook authorship as contributing to disciplinary knowledge. Each of the presenters took measured steps to show that textbooks are rhetorically, theoretically and scholastically valuable, by responding to an audience who they believe view textbooks as theoretically deficient and see textbook authors as willing to reinforce bad writing pedagogy and cashing in at the expense of students and untrained contingent faculty. Leonard Rosen, “Why I Write Textbooks, Not Journal Articles” Rosen began the session by stipulating that his presentation was “not intended to drive a wedge between scholarship and what I do.” Rather, Rosen believes that the theory propounded in journals articles is, in and of itself, valuable but not practical for professionals who must adapt the theory for classroom use. Therefore, Rosen views textbooks as guides essential to demystifying the teaching of writing, “to extend[ing] my efforts in my classroom to many classrooms.” Rosen views his textbooks as supplying instructors with the practical classroom applications often missing from theoretical articles. In fact, Rosen notes his books are written to help composition teachers he sees as drowning in work so deep that they often do not have the time to stay abreast of theory. Also, Rosen pointed out that writing textbooks allows him to actively participate in the field, to encourage students and help instructors, without having to work in the “oppressive institutional conditions” that mark many jobs in higher education. But, he was quick to add that he does not think money necessarily corrupts his scholarship: “The materials that need to get written are written.” Robert Yagelski: “Textbook Writing as Scholarly Inquiry: Selling Ideas or Selling Out?” Yagelski opened by conceding that many textbooks in the history of composition as a field have reinforced, and still reinforce, “bad, rules-based writing activities.” However, Yagelski believes good textbooks are forms of praxis which help to translate good composition theory into good classroom practice. In spite of the common conception that textbooks have no awareness of composition theory, Yagelski argues “textbooks can reflect the best of composition theory” if textbook writers see their work as a form of intellectual inquiry. Like Rosen, Yagelski pre-empted the question about whether profit corrupts textbook scholarship by acknowledging textbook production and the teaching of writing are “embedded in the context of corporate capitalism.” However, Yagelski believes textbooks can take advantage of capitalism to introduce ideas on a public scale which can then undermine the effects of capitalism, especially when textbooks involve writing students in larger discussions about writing, teaching and public policy. Bruce Ballenger: “Leading or Lagging?: Composition Textbooks and the Evolution of the Discipline” Ballenger notes his first textbook was written as a result of failures he experienced trying to teach his students how to conduct research and emphasizes this book was written before he became a composition scholar and in response to problems in the classroom. Further, Ballenger notes his experience reflects a critique of composition textbooks by Kathleen Welsh in which she claims that “textbooks reflect unconscious theory.” Similarly, Ballenger claims textbooks are typically written in response to problems in the classroom (problems of practice) as opposed to problems of theory. Ballenger recognizes composition textbooks have reflected poor pedagogy at times, but he claims that with the rise of composition theory and the field of composition studies, textbooks have changed to reflect current theories: “It’s fair to say that until the 1980’s, textbooks failed to reflect Composition theory, but they’ve evolved.” Even though there are still modal texts around, for example, they are no longer dominant in the field or the classroom, according to Ballenger. Noting that overly theoretical texts ignore practitioners who need pedagogy to help them solve practical, classroom problems, Ballenger concludes textbooks need to be practically and theoretically sound, and textbooks authors need to constantly re-imagine their audience. Michelle Payne: “Textbook Choice as an Instrument of a Writing Program’s Identity” Payne starts with idea that “textbooks emerge in response to untrained writing teachers,” and that composition, as a field, needs to focus on professionalizing instructors, teaching assistants and other writing teachers. Payne next discusses her research of four writing programs at schools across the nation to determine if a writing program’s identity could be assessed by looking at the textbooks adopted within the program. She concludes it is actually very difficult to determine the identity of a writing program with any real accuracy based on their textbooks because “textbooks represent complicated institutional and programmatic identities.” Payne believes programs are constructed in response to different, often competing theories of composition, theories inevitably reflected in different kinds of textbooks, yet there is a trialectic composed of progressive theory, teacherly autonomy and outcomes assessments that inhibits the implementation of a single theory, and therefore, a single textbook. Ultimately, the textbooks adopted in a writing program reflect the complications faced by writing programs usually composed of novices, experts, theoretically-grounded practitioners, theory-wary practitioners, Literature scholars, Composition scholars and others. In the question and answer period, it appeared that the audience was not as hostile as the presenters seemed to fear it might be. Many of the questions focused on the emergence of print-on-demand technology for mixing parts of different texts, and others wanted to know what the panelists felt about the relationship of textbooks to the institutional situation of Composition in which untrained teachers are “specialists.” Comments? |