What I find fascinating about this account of the basic reading and writing program at the University of Pittsburgh in 1977 is the commitment the instructors have given to developing a course that helps a student progress in his writing. Because there were no computers at the time, every revision had to be done by hand, every draft kept, revisited and revised. As is true now, the basic writers in this course were not the mainstreamed students, but the marginalized, the minorities, the underprepared. The authors contend that the students must mis-read and use this misreading as a sign of their place as a reader and not as a failure. But I believe they already see themselves to be failures because they are in a basic writing course.
A great deal of work went into developing this course and it reminds me of Kimberly K. Gunter's article on "Braiding..." in that this basic writing course allows the students to use the language that they already posses and incorporate it with the texts of other authors and by the end of the semester, other scholars. We can see how the case study on John revealed his progression even after two years of having completed the program. He learned to write exploratory drafts as a way to help get all of his thoughts down so that he can organize his writing.
One can tell a great deal of time was spent in creating this course and I wonder how and if this course can be modified to fit the time frames we have now in the basic writing course. The classes in community colleges are much bigger now and the class time has diminished. Basic writing classes do not meet three times a week therefore modifications must be made if one were to think about using this methodology in the classroom.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNayanda,
ReplyDeleteI was also really impressed with the amount of work that went into this project, as well as the resources that seem to have been dedicated to it. It's pretty incredible that the dean of the school recognized the need for the course and supported offering it for credit (6!). I think in principle, it's a pretty fantastic course, but in reality (for the reasons you mention -- typically larger class size, fewer instructional hours, only one instructor per classroom, etc) it would be hard to replicate. It would be interesting to discuss ways of modifying the course as a whole. But I also think there are a few parts of the course that can be taken as-is, specifically the frequent use of student drafts as models for revision and the idea of creating a final text of student work. I'm hoping to incorporate these elements into my course this semester. We'll see how it goes.
Yes, Nayanda, you make a perceptive point when you call attention to the program as a whole. This curriculum was designed for a course that was offered many times and by multiple teachers -- over a period of several years. A major investment of time, money, and thought has gone into this course, which is why it is worthy of a published book and of all the attention it has received from many readers. Some of the articles we are reading are much more limited in scope, even though focused on basic writing curricula.
ReplyDelete--Barbara