|
Articles Conference Reviews |
I.23 First-Year Seminar versus First-Year EnglishI.23 First-Year Seminar versus First-Year English: Rethinking the Curriculum in a Global Environment Hui Wu, University of Texas at Tyler, “Transforming Global Crises into Seminar Opportunities: Redirecting Composition Programs within English Departments” Wu kicked off this session with a forceful, almost accusatory, tone as she discussed the long history of crisis in composition, a crisis caused by us not doing our jobs. This then becomes our job—to argue for our identity, rather than more resources for our course content and curriculum. So, Wu argues, we try to stay away from being labeled a “service” course, even though FYW brings in so much money and does provide an invaluable service to the rest of the campus. Wu claims that research in composition done in big universities seems to be drifting away from practical realities in writing classrooms. She discusses a memo from faculty across the disciplines at a big university asking to redistribute money from FYC to across the disciplines. They wanted English TA money to get redistributed to other programs. They complained that students simply come to the disciplines not knowing how to use evidence, make claims, etc. in those disciplines. Wu continued on her polemic, arguing that WPAs and WAC/WID directors lack power to change campus cultures. If they do have power—they usually focus so much on scholarship that they do not pay enough attention to local administration and curriculum. Program directors rarely teach the courses that they profess to train and manage others to teach. Wu claimed. “We are slapping our own faces” when we ask WAC directors to teach faculty how they should teach their own students to write. She went to argue that our publications are too insular; we are simply talking to ourselves, not talking to larger agencies at the state and federal levels that make education policies. Until we can begin to think more globally about what we do and who we collaborate with, we will continue to be dominated by outside forces. Drawing on the work of Mike Rose, Wu urges composition-rhetoric folks to offer more training and focus on public discourses. She concluded by punctuating the idea that we must not just teach composition-rhetoric but DO composition-rhetoric for broader audiences—to those who have the power over our futures. If we continue this isolation, we will miss opportunities to develop our curriculums in ways that will make our concerns and needs heard more loudly to those who make policy and control budgets. Wu’s gave the audience some compelling things to consider. Jennifer Jeanfreau, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA, “Rethinking Traditional Writing Classes to Work along with Interdisciplinary First-Year Seminars” In tonal contrast, Jeanfreau, engaged the audience with a much more cheerful and positive rhetoric as she narrated her experiences transitioning from traditional First Year Composition (FYC) to First Year Seminar (FYS) courses. She thought that FYS were going to be just like Composition courses at first, but she found some stark differences. Overall, though, she expressed her feelings that her Composition classes have benefited greatly from her teaching FYSs. Jeanfreau explained that writing is important, but it is not the only pedagogical tool. She feels that her experience with FYSs has made her aware of the idea that writing can still be centered in the English Department, but that FYS can push instructors to be more creative in their teaching. For example, she spoke of the implications of technology—how students these days rely on search engines rather than printed text. Students can get information, but they don’t necessarily know how to use it, analyze it, and synthesize it. She emphasized how choice is important in FYS’s work toward critical and creative thinking. This increases student participation in the course, and this effects how well they do in that course. Writing to learn is encouraged in her FYSs. Jeanfreau drew on scholarship on FYSs explaining how Academic rather than Orientation types of FYSs are generally more successful. (Academic models generally have some sort of academic theme and usually have, often a substantial, writing component. Orientation types, which are becoming rarer, are more geared toward general introductions to the university.) Jeanfreau concluded by urging compositionists to take what has been learned in FYS and use it to help teaching and learning in FYC. Katherine H. Adams, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA, “From WAC Director to First-Year Seminar Director: Leadership for a New Era” Adams began dramatically by drawing on Robert Connors’ ideas of comp at war with shifting enrollments and what FYS might do for our idea of “best practices.” Drawing on data from the National Resource Center for First-Year Experience (NRCFYE), Adams helped affirm Jeanfreau’s comments on the Academic versus Orientation model. The Orientation model was down to about 58% of FYSs in 2006. Academic models accounted for 54%, up 18% from the previous year. Adams argued this move to more academic models of FYSs is changing who is teaching first-year writing and why. The impact of these academic models of FYS lies in how they can affect the way writing, speaking, and critical thinking are thought about across the disciplines. Adams claimed that FYS embodies what WAC’s mission really is: to sustain writing across the disciplines and persuade instructors to teach writing in their fields. Drawing on Barbara Walvoord, Adams insisted WAC cannot be Switzerland; it must unite with other writing and teaching-learning programs on campus to survive and thrive. Adams went on to claim that FYSs are an easier sell than WAC or W-intensive courses: they can have more students enrolled per course, and they can give instructors from across the disciplines the ability to stay more true to their own disciplines perhaps. Adams referred to the Boyer report from 1998, which claimed that students were not tasting authentic research in their first two years. She pointed to FYSs as a way to provide students with more satisfying inquiry morsels. She went on to argue that, with students often changing majors and focus, it can be hard to get students fitted neatly into W-courses. She concluded by asking “What does WAC mean and how is it serving our students?” She answered by drawing on the NRCFYE data again to suggest what strong FYSs can do: create stronger peer connections, generate greater satisfaction in teaching and learning, lead to increased campus service use, encourage higher participation in campus activities, lead to more critical thinking, and, ultimately, foster more persistence to graduate. Together, the speakers in this panel left us with much to ruminate on. How much do our FYW courses involve other teachers of writing and creative and critical thinking across the curriculum? How much should they? What can we learn from FYS and FYE programs that we can take into our FYC courses and programs? And how and why should we make our teaching voices heard more loudly, clearly, and persuasively to stakeholders both within and outside of our respective campuses? |