|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LAE6392 > Practicum Discussion 08 > Reading Response Composition at the Turn of the 21st Century
|
Practicum Discussion 08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Started: 10/24/2008 10:20 AM | |
|  | Reading Response: Composition at the Turn of the 21st Century While I found Fulkerson's discussion of his self-defined "three alternative axiologies" interesting, and I even thought he made some good points about the strengths and weaknesses of some of these, nonetheless I was annoyed at his thinly veiled antipathy for any progressive new ideas.
His first hint of this is in how he laments that he originally approached the topic in 1990 with "a good deal of optimism and a sense of progress" (655), but apparently now thanks to the introduction of such "radical antifoundational view[s]" (671), he feels it has gone astray.
I also resist his systematic approach to neatly fitting the art of teaching into so many boxes. While it is certainly true that there must be some sense of standardization and shared goals in an FYC program, both for the benefit of the instructors and students, I feel Fulkerson does not allow for the real-world blurring of these categories. This is shown in his oversimplistic summary point that "The major divide [in a college writing program] is... between a postmodern, cultural studies, reading-based program, and a broadly conceived rhetoric of genres and discourse forums" (679). I feel that the FYC program at USF does not fall into this binary, and instead uses a clear emphasis on classical rhetoric as it applies to those "postmodern, cultural studies" topics. This approach makes the subject of composition and rhetoric (at least partially) relavent to our students and their community while still teaching the foundation of rhetoric to increase their communication skills AND their critical thinking skills.
And what is up with the comment "If you got your degree at South Florida, then you are post-everything"(680)???? I guess that just proves that our program just doesn't fit nicely into one of Fulkerson's little boxes. | |
Posted: 10/25/2008 3:27 PM | |
| |
From: Purnell, David Posted: Saturday, October 25, 2008 3:25 PM Subject: Reading Response: Composition at the Turn of the 21st Century
While doing research for another project, I read a book by Don Watson entitled Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language. The basic premise of the book is how we overuse jargon and reduce its impact in rhetorical discourse. The book also talks about using the right word in the right situation. Fulkerson seems to be doing both. I found his writing to be engaging and challenging at times, and dismissive and insulting at other times. I felt that his apparent wanting to categorize aspects of teaching limited his objectivity, and restrained his ability to look outside the box to which he seems to have a fond proclivity.
Watson seems to be very opinionated, and by not always using the right word/s at the right times, it takes away from his ability to draw-in his audience. At least that is the impression to which I was left. He also makes several either vague or out and out unsubstantiated claims especially in his summary in point 7. Fulkerson listed several universities and stated that they all teach just “one dominant perspective” (680).
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|