This article immediately caught my attention due to the modern and practical applications of it. I love reading articles that pertain to academic impacts of the world that we are living in today. It was interesting to see the ways that racial tensions and even the COVID-19 pandemic were incorporated into this article.

This article was grouped into several sections. First of all, the authors provided their concrete definition of race and its impact in their field. Race is a “socially constructed artifact to maintain systemic forms of oppression” (58). They explained how, although students may think that race does not play a role in their academic pursuits and writing, it absolutely does.

The questions that guided their studies are the following: “What are the origins in the construction of race and the body in the west? In what ways are these original constructions permeating current medical consciousness? Where precisely is the term “race” being used and with what other terms and definitions? And finally, what role can we as rhetoric educators play in opposing the dominant discourses of race and biology?” (59).

After explaining their studies and two case studies, the authors came to the conclusion that “critical awareness of the responsibility we hold as distributors of institutional knowledge is pertinent to the critical mindfulness and practices students can develop” (70).

It is incredibly reassuring to see that there are educators of future generations that are committed to this goal. 

Personally, I really enjoyed this article because it took everything that we learned this semester to a truly practical level that we can apply in our learning and our teaching.

The overarching goal of their study was to analyze “how individuals with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) approach writing tasks” (91). From the beginning of this article, I was drawn to the positive outlook that the researchers placed on adults with ASD. Instead of viewing autism as a deficit, they encouraged “‘embracing difference’” (92). I believe that this allowed them to have a more clear view on their research instead of a negative outlook on their participants. 

From their writing, it appears as though the reason why they were inspired to conduct this study is the lack of research when it comes to writing and ASD. They wanted to find a way to provide a better experience for students with ASD. 

In order to do this, Tomlinson and Newman collected 29 adult volunteers with ASD to respond to survey questions regarding impressions of writing, experiences with projects, and useful writing techniques.

In the first section, no concrete data was necessarily collected as “participants’ strengths and weaknesses varied greatly,” which supported the idea of embracing differences (98). One large similarity in challenges, however, was “particular aspects of audience” and defining what it is to be (98).

The second section dove into some more specific and individual experiences of the participants.

In the third and final section, the responses focused on “mind games and organizational tools” (100). Specifically, the setting in which they were writing played a huge role in the results of their writing. 

The most impactful part of the article for me was the suggestions for teachers. These included “specific activities and accommodations to consider, with a subset of activities related to audience; provision of moral support; … recommendations about skills to target… [and] providing examples” (101). As a teacher, these tools are extremely helpful as I teach many students with ASD.

The part of FYC Chapter 13 that most caught my attention was the section subtitled, “Writing to Learn About Community.” Perhaps this is because of the article that I read from College English, but I love thinking about the way that our writing connects to the world around us. 

The author in this section reminded us that “writing is a collaborative endeavor” (359). Often times, students (including myself) view writing as an isolated experience that only impacts you (and your grade). Instead, however, we should view writing as active and containing agency. The author brought up concepts such as the contact zone and inclusion of sources that were discussed by authors throughout the text to provide examples of how writing can be collaborative.

Specifically, this section had me thinking of the political remix article that we read several weeks ago. What is more collaborative than making your own social response to something that is going on in society?

 There are so many ways that educators can encourage their students to make their writing communal. Unlike what I thought prior to this course, collaborative writing does not simply mean peer review. It is so much more than that and provides so much potential for action and for learning. 

 

One Chapter 13 point I continue to ponder is “first-year composition does not focus on persuasion” (350), "rather in terms of inquiry and the construction of knowledge" (351). While I see that to be the case with the inquiry based theory and assignments outlined by Anson,  Mathieu, Villanueva, and Yancey for example, in our divisive world of today I question how students perceive the argumentation exercises in which they are instructed to take a position or “make an argument that seeks to persuade your audience” (Reid, 207). 

Going back to David Fleming in GCP, I see the value of argumentation training for “reasoning with others” (249), however I think steering clear of the word “argument” and focusing on “inquiry,” "claim," and "evidence" for writing assignments provides more clarity to students (and supports the first sentence in this paragraph). From week 6/7, Adler-Kassner and Estrem (WPA Journal, 2003) provided an engaging model for an inquiry-based researched essay, designed to connect students with their topic rather than hinting they need take a position or resolve an issue.

I didn’t intend to read “Falafel Memories” (Rice, 2017) based on what I initially perceived to be a narrow focus on food writing pedagogy. Out of curiosity (and a love of falafel), however, once I started I couldn’t stop! My husband, a foodie, got to hear excerpts and my rambling on about it over an 8 hour drive on Thanksgiving. 

 

Though not exactly author Jeff Rice’s article purpose, if you’re fascinated by the construction of knowledge through writing and open to the wondering journey of inquiry, do yourself a favor and read "Falafel Memories." (Even if you hate falafel.) 

 

Rather than a food writing pedagogy dependent on decoding or interpretive practices, which Rice shows in his literature review largely “centers on critique and the decoding of representation” (123), he walks through a model in which personal writing is paired “with research around some item or issue that might seem insignificant or minor” (122). Decoding pedagogy has been used in food writing to probe power and representation (which I get the impression Rice is burnt out on), attributed to an association of the practice with scholarly, authentic academic writing. (Food writing, once deemed trivial and unacademic, is combatting an insecurity complex.)

 

In this case, Rice uses his love affair with eating falafel and frustration with his inability to cook it, as an inquiry prompt in which a larger issue – authenticity – emerges. He uses Jim Corder’s model to compose his narrative: 

 

Excerpts from this engaging article could demonstrate to students an invention strategy, and serve as an example of effective use of Corder’s model for an inquiry assignment. Since this pedagogy doesn’t aspire to unveil bold claims or absolutes about power and representation, students may find it less daunting. I do. 

 

The PARS pedagogy is based upon the user (student) experience, and is most effective “when all four enactable elements are implemented simultaneously in the design, instruction, and administration of an online writing program” (200). 

 

 

One of the book’s shortcomings, according to Washakie, is lack of attention on cultural differences. However, overall, PARS is a practical approach for online instructors. 

 

Washakie, K. (2021). Personal, Accessible, Responsive, Strategic: Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors. Composition Studies, 49(1), 200+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A672175140/GPS?u=mnamsumank&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=64e07376

I also found the “Response to Writing” section helpful. That’s another balance that is difficult even in the high school classroom. The “Houdini” balance of being the person who needs to give grades while also providing meaningful feedback is a tough one to follow. But I think the emphasis on feedback and getting students to see writing as a process are vital in students’ growth. There was also a strong argument for peer feedback as well, with my favorite strategy being the peer discussion prior to writing, either in the form of brainstorming collaboratively or free writing and sharing. These activities help students generate ideas and build off of one another.