|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2007F27PerraultF.27: “But We’re ______, Not Writers: Re-Imagining Collective Identity in the Writing Classroom” This panel of writing professors from The Culinary Institute of America (which they referred to, to my amusement, as “The CIA”) stood out as one of the finest sets of presentations I attended at Cs. Some of my pleasure in attending the panel, despite the early hour (especially early for someone on a west-coast clock), came from the deliveries: the panelists read clearly from papers aimed at a listening audience. Even before I had had time for more than a few sips of coffee, I was able to follow what they said. Also, each of the five speakers spoke concisely enough that there was time left for questions. In addition to being well-presented, the talks helped me see composition in new ways. The CIA panelists discussed issues we all encounter in our teaching, but the issues seem to come into greater focus in the context of a culinary school, especially issues having to do with student identity. All too often students tell us that they do not identify as writers. Perhaps they don’t have clear alternative identities yet—in first year composition, at least, few of my students are very far invested into academic or professional identities—but they know what they mostly are not: Not English majors, not essayists, not creative writers, not writers period. The question of identity seems even clearer at The CIA where the students share a common goal of becoming chefs. Adam Williams: “Interrupting Swim Class with Some Drowning Practice.” Adam Williams began the panel by talking about the students’ identities, and pointed out that the culinary classes shape not only the students’ professional identities but also their pedagogical expectations. Writing instruction, Williams said, runs counter to the pedagogy necessary in many culinary classes, a teaching approach he summed up as “watch me, and do exactly what I do.” In contrast to this expectation that students will mimic their instructors, as a writing teacher, Williams’s writing students are asked “to willing enter a state of not knowing,” to interrupt their swim class, as his title says, with some drowning practice. Vivian Cadbury: “Writing Without a Recipe: Exploring Identity with Culinary Students.” Continuing the identity theme, Vivian Cadbury explained how she came to use food in her writing class. At first, she said, she was uncomfortable talking about food in class because she felt ignorant about it. Sometimes she would have a chef instructor come to class, and she noticed how alert the students were when facing someone in a chef’s coat and toque. (At this point in her talk she donned a chef’s coat, and gave the rest of her presentation in the garb her students know to respect.) Eventually she began including food in her classes, using a three-step process to help her students build from an identity with which they are comfortable, “professional chef,” to an identity that is closer to the one they need to inhabit in her class, that of a student. She guides them there by way of helping them see themselves as “culinary students,” with an increasing emphasis on “students.” In her three-week basic writing course, she does this by starting with a personal narrative, then moving to writing about a field trip within the culinary school (for example, to the store room or the meat room), and finally by having students move away from food by writing about a movie. Anne Henry: “Critical Thinking Isn’t All That: Finding Parity between the Disparate Goals of Students and Teachers.” Like Cadbury, Anne Henry, talked about how her teaching changed over time. When she began teaching at The CIA, she believed that students should learn to “grapple with literature,” but over time she came to “resist the belief that a composition course that focuses on students’ career goals is a mere service course.” What this presentation highlighted for me is the pull writing teachers face between our passion for our own field(s) and our students’ sometime lack of interest in what gets us fired up. Henry ended up letting go of using A River Runs Through It in favor of Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore’s Dilemma, finding material for teaching critical thinking and writing in subjects that engage her students. Richard Horvath: “Working through Oppositions in the Writing Classroom.” Richard Horvath, who teaches a junior year composition and communication course, talked about the shift from more praxis-based work in the Associates program to the more academically oriented work in the Bachelors program. Horvath explained that his goal in the upper-division course is to help students discover that they do have an aptitude for writing and already have ample experience doing the kind of sorting, evaluating, and thinking that writing calls for. Horvath described today’s students as very inductive, intuitive learners, and suggests a teaching approach that emphasizes exploratory writing that allows ideas to evolve rather than being defended. Sharon Zraly: “Milennials and Their Parents: How They Have (Re)Shaped Assessment in FYC.” Finally, Zraly’s talk about the Millennial generation was a natural segue from Horvath’s points about today’s students and a good finale for the panel. As the Writing Program Coordinator, Zraly works with all of The CIA’s writing students and with some of their parents, and one trend she has identified in her work is a growing tendency for parents to be involved in students’ academic lives. Like her colleagues, Zraly foregrounded an important issue in composition programs, without falling into the trap of blaming students (or in this case, students and parents) for the problems we as writing teachers encounter. Instead, Zraly talked about possible reasons for greater parent involvement, including an observation that colleges are becoming more like businesses and creating greater expectations for return on investment. In this presentation, as in all of the others, I appreciated a new perspective on possible reason for, and useful approaches to, some of the challenges we face in teaching college writing. Comments? |