|
Articles Conference Reviews |
C.8 Service-Learning Projects in a Portfolio-Based Writing ProgramC.8 Making Space for Service-Learning Projects in a Portfolio-Based Writing Program As an instructor currently designing a service learning (SL) composition course, I found this panel both useful and inspiring. Three general studies writing instructors from Bowling Green State University presented different scenarios for integrating SL into a portfolio-based first-year composition curriculum. Learning outcomes and evaluation standards in the service-learning versions of the course remained consistent with other designs in the program; in addition, faculty received $3,000 each to develop classes with a SL component, of which $500 was donated to the partner organization. According to the presenters, the SL courses allowed students to perform a valuable community service, develop relationships, and engage with academic curriculum in a variety of ways, notably writing with real purposes for real audiences. Further, the presenters noted that these course designs afforded students the opportunity to actively contribute to the welfare of our diverse democratic society. The first presenter, Ann Westrick, addressed “Reality Writing for a County Educational Services Center: The Importance of Audience in a First-Year Composition Class.” Westrick’s learning objectives included developing and practicing critical and constructive thinking; active engagement; personal and social responsibility; clear, effective communication; knowledge acquisition; and articulation and demonstration of learning objectives. Wanting to “make it real,” Westrick paired students with an education service center that ran an after school program. Each student composed a brochure to parents addressing the problem of truancy. As Westrick pointed out, even in such real-world writing situations, students are still imagining their audience and purpose; if, however (as Ong claims), the audience is always a fiction, the students were still responding to an “authentic prompt.” Assignments included evaluating the rhetorical strategies of other brochures, developing criteria for assessing their effectiveness, and collaboratively creating their own rubrics. Westrick knew her students had succeeded when her daughter brought their brochure home from school as a handout for parents like her with students in the nine county schools in her area. Other sample projects included writing to persuade senior citizens to register for a “summer tech camp” (computer training), and writing biographies for animals in the local humane society waiting to be adopted. All courses included readings and 1-2 reflections. According to Westrick, students gained an “ease of professionality” by working through such activities, as their course reflections discussed what they learned and why they appreciated it. Another success, for Westrick, was when a student failed the class but nonetheless made sure he turned in the assignment. Based on her experience with SL, Westrick recommended to attendees that they begin their exploration of SL by identifying something lacking in their own community and to build their course design around this need. Amanda McGuire Rzicznek presented next on “Planting Seeds of Motivation: Community Gardens and the First-Year Composition Student.” As a self-proclaimed “foodie,” McGuire wanted to involve students in something she loved, so she chose the community garden with the intention of eventually donating to a local food pantry. Rzicznek began by engaging students with political and reflective works such as Food, Inc. Rzicznek then required students to contribute ten service hours. Since some students were more familiar with urban settings than community gardens, Rzicznek conceded that some students were uncomfortable with the “foodie”-based SL component and had to research gardening basics, such as when to harvest which vegetables. Explorations also included arguments for and against community gardens, common ground issues, the coming food revolution, problems and solutions around food production, and local-global food supply issues among others. For McGuire, the SL component furthered students’ critical and constructive thinking, including the ability to problematize related issues (e.g. school lunches) and find solutions. There was, she admitted, resistance, but she continued to frame the SL component as “helping people in need” and as relating students’ lives to something bigger than themselves. Challenges included getting started, and students who did not complete their required volunteer hours or show up as promised, but McGuire saw a major shift in such behavior from beginning to end of the course. Referring to the work of Richard Paul, McGuire wants students to move from motivation to critical thinking, so she asked students to assess their own writing as well as their own values and food politics to see the big picture. Counterarguments and struggles arose during the SL process, which McGuire conceded remained “messy” throughout, but students were ultimately present and thoughtful, and the work meaningful, claimed McGuire. She admitted to initially feeling discouraged, but she ultimately found the experience highly productive and even rejuvenating, as the class culminated in a meal cooked with food they had grown themselves, and a story about the meal appeared in the campus newspaper. In “Speaking with Silent Witnesses against Domestic Violence: Contesting Rhetorical Agency in the First-Year Composition Class,” Susan R. Carlton spoke movingly about her SL course, which culminated in a position paper about domestic violence. As an examination of agency, the course centered on “silent witnesses” who are the victims of domestic violence, with the purpose of helping students see themselves as authors and authorities on the subject. Carlton theorized pedagogies of SL using Flower’s treatment of community literacy, powerlessness, and privilege. Students examined activities and institutions that deny agency and instead create the scripted subject, and they were urged to identify the pitfalls for individuals who take control of their own lives. This work included examinations of how agents are appropriated by discourse and (must) thus exist in liminal spaces. In sum, the course focused on how to recognize agency in marginalized “Others.” Carlton challenged students to question “the grand narrative of individualism,” expand the notion of public agency, and avoid patronizing judgments of victims, and further to use inquiry, listening, and writing to achieve these ends. Class meetings took place in the Women’s Center on campus, where students also worked with “Alicia’s Voice,” a non-profit group dedicated to preventing domestic violence. Coursework included conducting library research leading to a paper on domestic violence, creating a flyer to promote a fundraiser, arguing a position on Ohio legislation related to domestic violence, evaluating children’s books for messages about violence and gender, and researching protections against dating violence. Students also took part in the “Silent Witness Project,” which included visual performance, displays of life sized cardboard silhouettes of victims, and reading victim’s stories aloud, among other activities. The question and answer period that followed the three presenters led to some very interesting discussion. Questions of selfishness versus altruism arose, and whether one could “push” students into service. Questioners problematized volunteer work and saw SL as implicating both student cynicism and the desire to “help.” Panelists argued against setting up a false binary, pointing out that SL can be both selfish and altruistic, with benefits and limitations. Panelists stressed that they were not co-opting the partner organization, but creating relationships and working collaboratively. Other points included the importance of a supportive institutional culture and that students’ reflective meaning-making remains key to SL in the composition classroom. |