Research Proposal Intro

Teaching writing of any sort in a classroom environment can be a tricky endeavor to navigate through. This is in part because of the subjectivity involved in “learning” to write; the multiple variables involved in an instructor’s own experience of learning to write, and their specific sense of writing as a craft. From the readings we’ve done for this class, as well as my observations as a new teacher attempting to define and justify the general broadness and utilization of writing to my students, I’ve begun to realize just how much an instructor’s personal worldview affects their subsequent definition of writing. My students, for the most part, came into 101 expecting a familiar set of writing assignments requiring a focus on structure and syntax, with an overarching goal of delivering/defending a convincing thesis. Their writing style, then, has tended to lean towards being as concise as possible: get in and get out as succinctly as possible. The abbreviation of ideas is an ally here, as to not risk digressing away from a central point and “losing” their audience (the instructor).

One of the most valuable assignments I’ve given to my students has been the letters I’ve asked them to write to me about their expectations of our 101 class. From the simple question What has your previous experience with writing classes been like and how do you think this one will compare? I’ve been able to track a kind of ubiquitous understanding and terminology formed throughout K-12 that can’t help but show up in assignments that fundamentally require a for totally different set of expectations. This has only really been possible through the grading contract, and I think it’s extremely beneficial. With the different kind of restraints involved in a complete/incomplete model of grading, quite a few of my students have found that they’re now able to focus on what naturally interests them while writing, and this primarily comes through in their personalized styles. More than half of the letters I received after the completion of the literacy narrative talked about the relief of being able to add humor or a strong I voice in the assignment; as if both of these things were previously outlawed in writing scholarly papers. Hell, perhaps it was outlawed.

I’d like to further explore the potential of allowing for (and more strongly advocating towards) the development of personal writing style, of narratorial voice and the kind of trajectory it can take in its independent growth. Obviously this will vary from student to student, and that is partly the reason for its apparent lack of emphasis in traditional courses centering on writing.

Potential Data Gathering & Results

It should be noted that the current curriculum as it stands is already quite an effective way of developing personal voice and style. In bypassing traditional requirements for what’s expected for the assignment completion (and really by having the first assignment not only be a personal narrative but having it correspond to a gradual and personal understanding of literacy) students are naturally “allowed” to explore a more instinctual way of writing. But the most immediate way I can visualize taking this development and focus on style even further is by modifying the literacy narrative requirements to directly involve an expression of “style.” Even as I write this, I see the potential contradiction of having an assignment requirement in order to bring out what has previously been brought out by way of a lack of requirement. To remedy this, I would include activities that involve reading and discussing, in and outside of class, more examples of style; perhaps even a lesson on our understanding of style, of examples that students can offer up to the class of styles they are aware and fond of, and how this ties back to genre and medium.

There was a hesitance towards writing the personal narrative in the first weeks of class, and what helped me work through this with my students was bringing in short excerpts of personal narratives that I liked and thought were distinct from one another. I had the class read by themselves, and then aloud, excerpts from George Saunders and Mary Karr, and the subsequent discussion of the two very different styles again found its way back to what is and isn’t allowed in writing. Some students found the rushed and slightly experimental nature of the Saunder’s excerpt refreshing or at least as an interesting new approach; as one students commented, “this feels like he’s telling me a story after I just met him.” Others preferred the Mary Karr piece, which was more traditionally written in past tense and emphasized metaphor/imagery. Either way, the feedback I received via letters after the assignment mostly expressed how reading these excerpts helped students feel more comfortable in using a “more natural voice.”

What I’d like to do, then, is to spend more time on deconstructing several distinct excerpts and discussing in class what creates a sense of style and voice, and what sort of techniques are used to do so. Post-assignment my feedback to students would focus on this, and we could even, in class, go through examples of style in everyone’s narratives to further illustrate that though style and voice in an inherent quality, certain mechanisms can be used to stress it. What this would ideally do is establish a foreground in which we acknowledge style for all future projects, especially in partner projects where the combining of styles can lead to interesting developments. This would, as well, all be in great service of our ongoing discussion about genre and medium; while genre and medium are already at the forefront at the start of introducing each project, this acknowledgement of style would hopefully take it a step further.

Much of the data gathering would be in the form of, again, letter responses before and after the literacy narrative, but also throughout the quarter, where I specifically ask students to free write and think about the development of their style. The grouping of certain students together for, say, the research project based on how they view their style development for the first few projects could yield compelling results as well. This is much of what the visual collage already aims to do, and extending it in a more direct way throughout the quarter could be worthwhile.

Sources So Far…

Hallstead, Tracy M., and Glenda Pritchett . “Reading: The Bridge to Everywhere .” Double Helix, vol. 1, 2013, pp. 1–12., qudoublehelixjournal.org/index.php/dh/article/view/9/88.

Garza, Edward Santos. “Style Makes the Writer: Expanding Considerations of Style in the Writing Center .” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, Squarespace , www.praxisuwc.com/ edward-santos-garza-143.

Del Nero, Jennifer Renner. “Fun While Showing, Not Telling: Crafting Vivid Detail in Writing.” Reading Teacher. Vol. 71, issue 1, p83-87. 2017