[Teaching_Composition] NEW MODULE

Wed, 8 Mar 2006 06:39:47 -0800 (PST)

Hi Everyone,
  I can't imagine "banning" discussions of personal
issues like faith or politics; the best/most
interesting class discussions I've ever tried to
moderate revolved around those very issues.  And yes,
I know that some students are inclined to cite
religious texts as support for their arguments even
though that support is based on emotion, not fact...
but I think my job as their instructor is to try to
convince them that there may be and probably are other
ways of viewing the topic under discussion.  I believe
my job is to welcome (and challenge, if need be) ALL
of their viewpoints, whether I personally agree with
them or not.  As one who holds deeply-felt beliefs
about a number of topics, why would I want my students
to cringe from doing so?  I'm awfully glad we've been
invited to share our opinions in this module!
Dr. Connie Schomburg
Creighton University

--- Emmanuel Sigauke <esigauke@ccsf.edu> wrote:

> Let me be the first to respond. When I teach
> research and the use of evidence, I often remind the
> students to be fair in the presentation of grounds
> and warrants for their claims. By fairness I mean
> they should provide evidence that leaves room
> objections. As a teacher I do not want to seem to be
> telling a student that his or her religious support
> for a claim is fallacious. While I may, I realize
> that this may have a strong effect on the way the
> student write after the feedback. While there is
> nothing wrong in inviting the authority of a
> religious document in presenting and supporting a
> claim, the invocation should be done is a way that
> weakens the writer's argument. I have often noticed
> that where religious grounds are used there is
> usually argument. Debates on issues like gay
> marriage, capital punishment are cases in point.
> Supporting a point of view on these issues soley on
> religious grounds may limit the student options, and
> worse, the reader's response. For instance, if!
>   a student were to use a Bible verse to support a
> claim, there is the possibility that objections may
> center on the verse, and not the argument; yet,
> respecting the authority of the Bible, some students
> may not be willing to argue against the stated
> message. 
> Additionally, given that some readers may be
> concerned with showing their sensitivity to the
> reader's religious faith, they may not be willing to
> seem to oppose what at the moment may seem
> "politically correct". 
> Some kinds of evidence, for instance what
> Shakespeare said, or the Oxford Advanced Dictionary,
> or the Webster's may have the same effect that use
> of faith may have in arguments. Their supposed
> authority may be used to "shut" readers up, hence
> contributing to the ever expanding field of
> fallacies. 
> 
> 
> Emmanuel Sigauke
> English Department
> City College of San Francisco 
> 50 Phelan Avenue
> San Francisco, CA  94112
> Phone:(415) 452-7059
> >>> chris_anson@ncsu.edu 03/03/06 7:38 PM >>>
> TeachingComp Listers:
> 
> 
> Perhaps you’ve heard or experienced the following in
> your work as a  
> writing teacher or WPA:
> 
> “I disallow the use of religious texts as
> appropriate evidence for  
> argumentative writing.”
> 
> “Expressions of faith are OK in my class as long as
> they’re in mostly  
> expressive writing such as journals, freewrites, and
> the like.”
> 
> “In class discussions, I shy away from highly
> personal accounts  
> because they are too emotionally charged, and these
> include matters  
> of political ideology and religion.”
> 
> “I was appalled to learn that my colleague tolerates
> the inclusion of  
> references to certain faith traditions in some
> students’ writing  
> (mostly among international students who are not
> Christians) but not  
> from others (mostly American Christians).”
> 
> “I welcome everything and anything in my course as
> long as it is not  
> discriminatory or hateful. Right, left, Christian,
> Muslim, agnostic,  
> Wikka, anti- and pro-abortion rights, tree-hugging
> and deer- 
> shooting . . . . anything.”
> 
> “I can’t stand it when I hear that a composition
> teacher ‘bans’  
> Topics X, Y, and Z from the spectrum of research
> topics*gun control,  
> abortion, the death penalty . . . we ought to be
> celebrating when  
> students tackle the most divisive, sensitive, and
> complex areas of  
> contemporary debate.”
> 
> “Academic writing is not about the private and the
> personal.”
> 
> This month’s module, led by Elizabeth Vander Lei,
> takes us deep into  
> some of the most interesting and complicated
> landscape of  
> contemporary pedagogy, where secular academic goals
> meet with the  
> wide range of students’ systems of faith and
> religious conviction,  
> from the most passionate devotees to the most
> adamant separators of  
> church and state to those who don’t want to profess
> anything but are  
> excited nonetheless to bring it all on. Elizabeth’s
> focus this month,  
> on religious faith in composition courses, comes at
> a time when  
> social forces are colliding in politics and  public
> life and making  
> their way into debates about education, especially
> what should and  
> shouldn’t be taught, allowed, given voice, or
> protected*on behalf of  
> both teachers and students*in those tangled,
> unpredictable, and  
> fascinating contact zones of our classrooms.
> 
> What do you think is the appropriate place of
> religious faith in the  
> teaching of writing? What have you told your
> students about religion  
> and its place in their writing? How have you
> responded to students  
> who bring religion into their papers in a personal
> way, or use their  
> own faith traditions to support points they are
> making in their  
> arguments?
> 
> Elizabeth Vander Lei is Associate Professor of
> English at Calvin  
> College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She teaches first
> year composition  
> and advanced courses in writing and the teaching of
> writing. Co- 
> editor of Negotiating Religious Faith in the
> Composition Classroom,  
> Elizabeth was first drawn to this topic by her
> research into the  
> effects of religious faith on African American
> rhetoric, particularly  
> that of the modern civil rights movement. She’s also
> one of the  
> nicest, smartest, and hardest working people you
> could hope to meet.   
> I know: she served admirably on the Executive Board
> of the Council of  
> Writing Program Administrators, and when her term
> was finally up,  
> there wasn’t a person on the Board who didn’t want
> either to sign her  
> up for life or clone her so she could stay around.
> 
> (Now, as to the ethical dimensions of cloning,
> different religions  
> approach this problem from several perspectives.
> First . . . .)
> 
> Check out Elizabeth’s module and resources at the
> TeachingComp Web  
> site, then come back to the list to start talking:
> http:// 
> www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tc/
> 
> And it’s OK*sex, religion, and politics are all
> welcome here at  
> TeachingComp.
> 
> Oh, and before we launch into our discussion, many
> thanks to Suzanne  
> Blum Malley and Amy Hawkins for leading us last
> month in our  
> exploration of ethnographic writing, which, although
> it has played an  
> important role in research in the field and beyond,
> has been somewhat  
> underrepresented in treatments of pedagogy in spite
> of a strong  
> interest in its potential. We’re all the better
> informed as a result  
> of their knowledge, experience, and counsel.
> 
> Chris Anson
> Moderator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chris M. Anson
> Professor of English
> Director, Campus Writing and Speaking Program
> Interim Director, Ph.D. in Communication, Rhetoric,
> and Digital Media
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 