still no word from betty. . .

but i’m guessing that the folks at general mills might not check their email over the weekend. i, on the other hand, have been checking frequently, mainly cause the dessert bars are involved.

since i knew i’d be at the computer for most of the day hoping for something from betty, i spent yesterday designing and then uploading the new course, theories and practices of teaching writing. like the play theory course, this one was particularly tough to design, mainly because there was/is so much i wanted to do and read and so little time to do it all in.

i decided to start with fishman’s “because this is who we are: writing in the amish community” mainly because it fostered a really interesting (not to mention pretty heated) debate about what counts as writing—good, bad, artsy, practical, or otherwise—what functions it might serve, etc. last time i used it in my qualitative research methods seminar.

following this, we’ll read a selection of workshop reports (mainly having to do with the function, objectives, outcomes, etc. of comp courses) from the 1950 volume of ccc and juxtapose these with the 2000 wpa outcomes statement. from there, we’ll spend two sessions looking at contemporary concerns/complaints about the way writing is taken up and/or currently taught and then it’s the happenings unit, by far, my favorite cluster of readings of the semester.

another hoot of a read is robert lambert’s “freshman masks” from ccc, december, 1962. in response to the problem of students producing lifeless, say-nothing, artificial and/or pretentious-sounding themes (hence the “mask” title), lambert writes: “Through whatever means possible. . .by flattery, by cajolery, by threat—the composition instructor should encourage students to remove their masks and to reveal their faces—however pimply, however sallow, however frightened, however bored. These faces,” lambert concludes “at least, are their own.”

i gotta say, the “however pimply” line gets me each time. that said, i always expect students (especially students in my fyc courses) to be more upset or outraged than they have been about the way lambert represents “freshman” writing/writers. but many have been like, “yeah, his classification of types of student writers still sounds pretty accurate, i’ve worn one or more of those masks before.” and i'm always like, "but what about the pimply line? doesn't that seem kinda rough?"