Other| October 01 2017 Contributors Pedagogy (2017) 17 (3): 571–574. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3975719 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 October 2017; 17 (3): 571–574. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3975719 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. 2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This essay considers the importance of nonstandard English to fostering a more inclusive and incisive Shakespeare classroom. Grady focuses on his experience as the instructor of a Shakespeare course that occasionally employed African American Vernacular English in its analysis of texts. His reflection considers how taking such language seriously encourages more genuine participation from a wide range of students. While this pedagogical approach offers one manner in which the field of early modern studies might expand points of access and foster cross-cultural dialogue, it also stands to deepen the analytic possibilities of the Shakespeare classroom. Grady uses the example of African American Vernacular English to demonstrate that nonstandard English can offer particularly nuanced means through which to investigate and discuss Shakespeare's works.

This essay considers select translations of Dante's Divine Comedy through the lens of pedagogical value while emphasizing the merit of holistic reading across the full scope of the poem and across multiple translations to gain additional insights into the original work.

This essay addresses education's paradoxical binding to disciplinary and hierarchical formulas and to social change and personal transformation, an irony uniquely extreme within the prison classroom. It juxtaposes two pedagogical models — one conventionally liberal, the other significantly more radical — to question the purpose and potential of prison education. In the process, the essay measures close reading, a textual practice that is also the hallmark of literary study, against the highest possible liberationist goals of the prison abolition movement.

This article offers a vertical reading of cantos 19 of the Divine Comedy, which emphasizes Dante's maturing ideas of justice and provides pedagogical exercises that invite students to grow alongside the pilgrim.

Review Article| October 01 2017 Teaching What We Do in Literary Studies Digging into Literature: Strategies for Reading, Analysis, and Writing. By Wolfe, Joanna and Wilder, Laura. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2016. 448 pages.Rhetorical Strategies and Genre Conventions in Literary Studies: Teaching and Writing in the Disciplines. By Wilder, Laura. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2012. 238 pages. Paul T. Corrigan Paul T. Corrigan Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2017) 17 (3): 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3975671 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter Email Permissions Search Site Citation Paul T. Corrigan; Teaching What We Do in Literary Studies. Pedagogy 1 October 2017; 17 (3): 549–556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3975671 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2017 by Duke University Press2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The essay argues that there is an institutional role—and obligation—to teach students to appreciate poetry. In contrast to vertical and intensive models of analysis that treat individual poems or authors as the primary unit of pedagogical value, aesthetic appreciation requires a lateral, extensive, and comparative mode of encounter.

Correction| April 01 2017 Erratum Pedagogy (2017) 17 (2): 371. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3845932 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Erratum. Pedagogy 1 April 2017; 17 (2): 371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3845932 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. 2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Erratum You do not currently have access to this content.

This essay compares and contrasts the first edition of In Memoriam, Tennyson's elegy for his friend Arthur Henry Hallam published in 1850, with more recent editions that distort the original by dramatically compressing the text to fit it onto fewer pages. In this light, I consider the negative impact that such editorial choices may have on students reading the poem for the first time and the benefits of presenting them with the text in the format first encountered by Victorian readers (accessible today thanks to the British Library). The blank space following many of In Memoriam's 131 lyric sections is an integral part of the mourning process that Tennyson unfolds before us. Relatedly, I describe my multiple attempts to teach the poem to undergraduates, as well as a talk on this topic that I gave on a pedagogy panel at the Northeast Victorian Studies Association's 2000 conference, “Victorian Breakdowns.”

Other| April 01 2017 Contributors Pedagogy (2017) 17 (2): 367–369. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3845948 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 April 2017; 17 (2): 367–369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3845948 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2017 by Duke University Press2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Review Article| April 01 2017 The Crisis of Composition: Teaching and Resistance in the Neoliberal Era Composition in the Age of Austerity. Edited by Welch, Nancy and Scott, Tony. Utah State University Press, 2016. 235 pages. Phillip Goodwin Phillip Goodwin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2017) 17 (2): 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3770245 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Phillip Goodwin; The Crisis of Composition: Teaching and Resistance in the Neoliberal Era. Pedagogy 1 April 2017; 17 (2): 351–358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3770245 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2017 by Duke University Press2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.

Introduction| April 01 2017 Introduction: A Roundtable on “Teaching 1874” Suzy Anger Suzy Anger Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2017) 17 (2): 321–322. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3770181 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Suzy Anger; Introduction: A Roundtable on “Teaching 1874”. Pedagogy 1 April 2017; 17 (2): 321–322. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3770181 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2017 by Duke University Press2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: From the Classroom You do not currently have access to this content.

The creative writing program through its theory, pedagogy, and praxis in workshops has resisted the inclusion of lived experiences of politically active radical minorities. To mitigate some of these exclusions, I restructured a traditional workshop to integrate critical race studies by including nonwhite writer-activists and writer-centered social movements countering dominant white discourses.

Rather than ignoring or criticizing students' vocational concerns, critical pedagogy can work on, in, and through them, thereby gaining persuasive credibility and simultaneously extending Paulo Freire's educational project. Following Freire's command to “rediscover power,” this article employs Michel Foucault's analysis of neoliberal biopolitics to imagine possibilities for both personal and systemic transformation.

Changing constructions of literacy in online contexts are situating reading and writing within everyday and popular culture activities while also facilitating highly specialized literate and creative activity. I define these two types of literacy as “little-l” literacy and “Big-L” literacy, drawing on distinctions of “Big-C” versus “little-c” culture and creativity, and then show how digital environments are changing writing space and creating new literacies of a third kind. The effects of electronic technologies on the processes and products of literacy, culture, and creativity require a rethinking of traditional views of culture and creativity to bring them up-to-date in the digital era, with implications for pedagogy.

Review Article| April 01 2017 Composing at the Threshold: Collaborative Composition and Innovative Form Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Edited by Adler-Kassner, Linda and Wardle, Elizabeth. Utah State University Press, 2016. 232 pages. Rebecca C. Conklin Rebecca C. Conklin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2017) 17 (2): 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3770261 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Rebecca C. Conklin; Composing at the Threshold: Collaborative Composition and Innovative Form. Pedagogy 1 April 2017; 17 (2): 359–365. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3770261 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2017 by Duke University Press2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Critical race theory has long relied on metaphors of perception to further its critiques of white hegemonic power. However, such criticism often depends on a paradoxical logic that silences white students in classroom discussions of race. This essay suggests the dominant pedagogical approach to whiteness is obsolete, calling for new inclusive strategies to break the rhetorical stalemate.

This article explores the benefits of bringing museum education into the composition classroom to help students develop confidence and skill in oral presentation. Drawing on current scholarship in object-based learning and engaging museum audiences, it outlines a project in which students closely observed objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and critiqued a museum tour before presenting on their objects on-site at the museum. As well as teaching students new skills, the project also encouraged them to use their own experiences as audience members in the classroom and the museum to create more engaging and coherent presentations for their peers. The article explains the logistics of the project and students' reactions, concluding with students' own reflections on the benefits of presenting in a museum setting.

This article argues for using rhetorical quandaries as a basis for composition courses. Following work in composition that considers the notion of “problem,” the article explores constraints as a way to determine main difficulties in writing situations. Course examples indicate connections between difficult writing moments and larger societal dilemmas.

Those of us who teach English literature are familiar with the wide range of skills and capacities of our students. It remains a challenge, though, for English students to demonstrate the applicability of those skills beyond the academy, for instance, to prospective employers. This essay argues that creative education through experiential learning provides important opportunities for students and enhances their development as independent individuals who make their own decisions. To examine the pedagogical benefits that such learning can have in the humanities, this article draws on two extracurricular projects that we coordinate, NuSense, an undergraduate online journal, and Shakespeare after School, a community drama program for children. The skills the student volunteers draw upon to complete these projects include research, editing, writing, analysis, dramaturgy, and time management. In other words, NuSense and Shakespeare after School utilize the core skills of English studies and help students both hone and demonstrate those skills in a practical and public setting.

Other| January 01 2017 Contributors Pedagogy (2017) 17 (1): 149–150. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3658638 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 January 2017; 17 (1): 149–150. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3658638 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2017 by Duke University Press2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Contributors You do not currently have access to this content.

This article features pushback as a rhetorical and ethical pedagogical posture for engaging whiteness in the tight space of the university elevator. In addition, it outlines how the racialized space of the historically white institutions renders the ways faculty women of color such as myself exercise pedagogical care and teacherly ethos.

This essay follows an active duty Army officer from her first day in graduate school until a year after graduation, when she is able to situate her role as military student within the context of a civilian university. This essay argues that some of the boundaries surrounding those associated with the military can be of their own making and that a composition class, specifically, equips its military members and student veterans with the tools to recognize, name, and negotiate those boundaries.

Other| October 01 2016 Contributors Pedagogy (2016) 16 (3): 583–586. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3600973 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 October 2016; 16 (3): 583–586. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3600973 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2016 by Duke University Press2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This article presents a three-stage critique of the “schools approach” to teaching literary theory at the undergraduate level. First, it demonstrates the continued dominance of this approach both in teaching programs and in the textbook literature. Second, it discusses the approach's pedagogical shortcomings. Third, it presents a teaching approach better suited to encourage active theoretical reflection.

Based on a study of collected teaching statements, this article analyzes how compositionists use metaphors of writing and teaching to describe their pedagogical practice and philosophy. I argue that the interactive use of metaphors within teaching statements shows how a teacher's pedagogical identity is endorsed by disciplinary values.

This article uses Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy to explore how literature instructors can use eighteenth-century novels, many of which bring attention to themselves as creations of the writing process, to encourage their students to reflect on their position as writers in the twenty-first century. Gulya proposes teaching Tristram Shandy and other self-referential texts within the context of writing studies. This approach helps our students recognize the close relationship between writing and cognition and, by so doing, brings their attention to writing as a process as well as a product. Gulya also outlines some of the major benefits of encouraging students to think about writing as a process, including more vibrant peer-revision sessions and an increase in students' tendencies to take intellectual risks in their writing.

Other| October 01 2016 Call for Papers: Special Issue of Pedagogy Pedagogy (2016) 16 (3): 587–589. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3755517 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Call for Papers: Special Issue of Pedagogy. Pedagogy 1 October 2016; 16 (3): 587–589. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3755517 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2016 by Duke University Press2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Review Article| October 01 2016 Code-Meshing and African American Literacy Other People's English: Code-Meshing, Code-Switching, and African American Literacy. By Young, Vershawn Ashanti, Barrett, Rusty, Young-Rivera, Y'Shanda, and Lovejoy, Kim Brian. New York: Teachers College Press, 2014. 190 pages. Alexis McGee Alexis McGee Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2016) 16 (3): 577–582. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3600957 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Alexis McGee; Code-Meshing and African American Literacy. Pedagogy 1 October 2016; 16 (3): 577–582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3600957 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2016 by Duke University Press2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The purpose of this article is to share how classroom incorporation of technology with feminist pedagogy in mind both elicited and constrained learning opportunities in a large, blended class setting. Technology selection, assignment revision, and changes to teaching practices are addressed. We conclude with recommendations for teachers facing similar circumstances.

This article describes a sequence of assignments to guide students through an informed effort at making contributions to Wikipedia that persist, and suggests ways this set of exercises in social informatics may also serve a number of common goals in a variety of writing, literature, and other courses: analyzing and writing for explicit editorial guidelines (“standards” in information science, “house style” in editorial practice); understanding, conforming to, and even negotiating conventions of genres and subgenres; collaborating online; writing for an audience that not only is real but also talks back; and developing deep understanding of revision and the writing, editorial, and publication processes. Students first learn Wikipedia policies and practices and analyze the historical development of articles before they make contributions. The pedagogical opportunities arguably outweigh the concerns of those who doubt the credibility of an open-authored encyclopedia.

Both creative writing and composition seek to teach writing, yet their pedagogical approaches are poles apart, especially concerning instructors. Creative writing instructors serve as “mentor-models,” whose authority comes from their writing practice rather than (only) departmental sanction. Despite potential pitfalls, a mentor-model approach could reaffirm composition instructors' identities as writers.

Students in freshman composition classes often assume that the goal of college writing is to sound like someone else, so they struggle to frame their own questions in response to the world around them. This article analyzes the potential for student-driven learning to redress this problem. It focuses on a team-taught freshman composition course that asked students to collaborate in designing a section of their curriculum. The article argues that control over the curriculum inspired many students to push themselves intellectually and adopt the roles of teachers. On the other hand, increased autonomy sometimes disempowered students who had not yet acquired skills to assess their own strengths and weaknesses and who thus reverted to oversimplified ideas or avoided actively taking on responsibilities. If agency constitutes the power to carry out effective action, this course illustrated the capacity of autonomy both to foster and to subvert student agency.

Other| April 01 2016 Contributors Pedagogy (2016) 16 (2): 377–379. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3436044 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 April 2016; 16 (2): 377–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3436044 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2016 by Duke University Press2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This article addresses the teaching of Amy Levy's “Xantippe” (1880), a poem 279 lines long, in an upper-division survey of British literature from 1800 to the present focused on life stories. Though the poem is short enough to be read in a single sitting, it is also long enough to pose the pedagogical challenges common to teaching all long poems: asking students to read both closely and at length, to discern unifying tropes or themes across manifold details or narrative episodes, to engage in sufficient discussion commensurate with the long poem's complexity, and to discover the pleasures of the long poem (deep immersion, sweep of vistas, narrative propulsion, and more). Since Levy is not anthologized in most survey textbooks, the article also concerns teaching noncanonical poetry. The methods presented include prompts posing questions and explaining the work's poetic and cultural contexts, and student reading diaries listing what students found challenging and what they learned. The article thus incorporates real-time student responses, as well as discussion of teaching strategies.

This article offers an innovative pedagogical technique for teaching students to think critically and analytically about race, especially for student populations most accurately characterized as white and middle class. I illustrate this technique by relating my experiences designing and teaching a first-year writing course called the Monstrous and the Human at the University of Delaware. The concept of monstrousness and the problem of race may at first appear unrelated, yet this is precisely the strength of the course, which relies on a method of defamiliarization. Course readings begin by exploring monstrousness in Victorian science fiction novels, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and then shift to a study of how conventions of these novels recur in novels that examine race in American society, such as Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. In combination with class discussion and course writing assignments, this reading progression invites students to see race from a new perspective. In this article I share my reasons for creating this course, detail its assignments, and show how the course can help students expand their understanding of race in American society. I argue that by teaching race through defamiliarization, we encourage students to arrive at their own understanding of race and racism without inculcating our own beliefs.

This article introduces a roundtable on teaching long poems by British women writers, presented as a special session at the 2014 Modern Language Association conference in Chicago. The articles in the roundtable provide teaching strategies that are pertinent to the writers under review but can easily be extended to many more writers and works. The resistance of students to long poems by any poet, much less by women, reveals that professors still have much work to do in establishing lesser-known women writers as coequal with their better-known male contemporaries. This resistance is a teaching opportunity to address issues of genre, gender, and canonicity. In a larger sense, the articles argue for the potential of pedagogical practice to reconstitute the canon.

Against the background of available pedagogical advice, this article describes the challenges faced and innovations undertaken in a large lecture-discussion literature class for nonmajor undergraduates. The professor and graduate teachers found the task fraught with problems but also fertile in possibilities for improving undergraduate literacy and pedagogical skills and techniques.

1986. New Orleans. The Conference on College Composition and Communication. The two of us and Elaine O. Lees are presenting on a panel titled “ReaderResponse Theory and the Teaching of Writing: The Teacher as Responding Reader.” Our titles? Salvatori: “Some Implications of Iser’s Theory of Reading for the Teaching of Writing.” Donahue: “Barthes and the Obtuse Reader.” Lees: “Is There an Error in This Text? What Stanley Fish’s Theory of Reading Implies about the Teaching of English.” There was something special about the Conference on College Composition and Communication that year, especially for anyone concerned about reading. A few books had already been published: Composition and Literature: Bridging the Gap, edited by Winfred Bryan Horner (1983); Writ­ ing and Reading Differently, edited by G. Douglas Atkins and Michael Johnson (1985); Only Connect, edited by Thomas Newkirk (1986); and Conver­ gences: Transactions in Reading and Writing, edited by Bruce T. Peterson (1986). More appeared to be on the way, for instance, Reclaiming Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of the Classroom, edited by Patricia Donahue and Ellen Quandahl (1989). College English and College Composition and Communication were brimming with provocative investigations. Interest in reading was, paradoxically, both bourgeoning and at its apex, which we came to recognize only in retrospect. Over the next few years, while we and a few others (most notably David Bartholomae, Elizabeth Flynn, Joseph Harris, David Jolliffe, Kathleen McCormick, Susan Miller, Thomas Newkirk, and Donna Qualley)

This article illuminates how reading serves as the foundation for writing workshops in both composition and creative writing courses. It discusses cooperative learning and improved student writing as two main goals for workshop and explains how both are completely reliant on student reading. The article introduces a particularly effective way to teach students to read in preparation for workshop and concludes by revealing how asking students to read published and student-produced texts in different ways can inadvertently devalue student writing and limit workshop's effectiveness.

This article argues that writing centers must recognize themselves as already reading centered and prepare tutors to teach multiple ways of reading because current writing center scholarship does not help sufficiently with nonliterary reading work and because doing so would position centers to fully support students as they work within the wealth of “new” reading pedagogy and curriculum that has surfaced (or resurfaced) in recent years. It discusses the limitations of tutor handbooks in supporting tutors in reading-focused sessions and offers a tangible tool for helping tutors begin thinking and talking about reading work, ending with a call for writing centers to reconceptualize themselves as reading centered in order to embrace and explore “new” reading pedagogies through research and practice.

This article argues that getting students to learn about archival preservation and research in the context of an underpreserved, underresearched history offers a number of pedagogical rewards. Colleges and universities are pushing to increase community-based learning opportunities for undergraduates. At the same time, digital humanities initiatives are making it increasingly possible for undergraduates to work hands-on with primary sources, and a number of university-sponsored efforts are being made to process and digitize neglected African American archives. Many of these projects make use of graduate student labor, but few have recognized the benefits of engaging undergraduates in processing local and minority archives as part of their classroom experience. This article argues that such classes would not only build mutually beneficial relationships between town and gown but also encourage students to recognize that the approach to history they are familiar with—one that emphasizes national leaders and “major” events—is part of the same tendency to value the powerful that has caused African American history to be underpreserved. Preserving and publicizing local histories counters this tendency and may help produce a younger generation of scholars who are attuned to politics of power and privilege within the scholarship they encounter and produce.

This article argues for the importance of teaching reading in first-year composition courses within a metacognitive framework called mindful reading. Crucial for developing more comprehensive literacy practices that students can transfer into other courses and contexts, this framework encourages students to actively reflect on a range of reading practices in order to become more knowledgeable and deliberate about how they read. This work is intended to prepare students to successfully engage with the range of complex texts they will encounter throughout their postsecondary academic careers and beyond.

This article explores the emphasis on reading instruction in the classical pedagogical technique of imitatio. It briefly surveys scholarship in literary and composition studies to trace a short history of this pedagogy before turning to contemporary descriptions of reading pedagogy and showing how imitatio interacts with such practices.

I address how participating as a parent in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process has helped to transform my own approach to teaching by reinforcing how important it is to endorse a pedagogy that recognizes and values the individuality of my students. Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) has served as the best model I have found to help me move closer to my ideal classroom, and the course that most reflects this ideal classroom is my upper-level Disability and Literature course. The course's greatest strength lies in the extent to which its format and delivery are inextricably tied to its subject matter through an ethic of care(taking), especially through the incorporation of a number of UDI features into this course. What is more, while the traditional class meetings remain a privileged site of collaborative engagement and learning, the course blog is an equally crucial component to such collaboration, as the students create nearly all of its content. Indeed, the blog space serves not only as a place for students to record their responses to the assigned readings and in-class discussions but also as a student-driven supplement to the instructor-supplied focus points, a supplement that truly expands the range of possibilities implicitly represented in my choice of readings. I now understand such a pedagogical orientation not simply as a generic model for “good teaching” but as a reflection of a disability-inflected pedagogy of care.

Other| October 01 2015 Index to Volume 15 Pedagogy (2015) 15 (3): 593–596. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3149591 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Index to Volume 15. Pedagogy 1 October 2015; 15 (3): 593–596. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3149591 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. 2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Index to Volume 15 You do not currently have access to this content.

This article explores the advantages of pairing disability studies with the study of rhetoric/composition in the first-year seminar classroom. Examining the ways in which both disability studies and rhetoric interrogate issues of construction, it argues that the two fields mutually reinforce one another when taught together since they both prioritize critical thinking, close reading, and careful argumentation. This article offers a number of specific examples of in-class activities, writing assignments, and possible texts for a class that merges disability studies and composition. In addition, it discusses the value of using superpowers as a context for the study of disability in a first-year seminar, arguing that superpowers provide a unique access point for engaging disability while also encouraging students to more carefully examine a wide variety of cultural texts.

This special issue of Pedagogy , titled “Caring From, Caring Through: Pedagogical Responses to Disability” explores the complex dynamics of disability, pedagogy, and care work and thus augments important scholarship on the personal experiences of disabled teachers, on how mental and physical variation shapes classroom encounters, and on parenting disabled children while inside the academy. Different from these conversations, though, this special issue applies disability theory more explicitly to pedagogical techniques and teaching philosophies. Put another way, the issue outlines pedagogical logics, classroom practices, and ethical considerations that might provoke radical institutional change and that testify to the generative symbiosis of lived disability, disability research/scholarship, and disability content/practices in the classroom. The articles in this issue grow out of authors’ situated, embodied knowledges and experiences of caring from or through disability; contributors contemplate what — and how — caring for/with/through disability has taught them about teaching. At the heart of each of these articles lies the belief that our common humanity is evidenced, paradoxically, through diverse human variation. Questions about how to enact in our lives and classrooms a politics that honors, engages, and conserves that variation — a politics of inclusion, equity, and access — motivate the meditations that follow.

Review Article| October 01 2015 Crisis? What Crisis? Defending the Humanities—and Literary Study The Humanities “Crisis” and the Future of Literary Studies. By Jay, Paul. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2014. Deborah H. Holdstein Deborah H. Holdstein Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2015) 15 (3): 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2917217 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Deborah H. Holdstein; Crisis? What Crisis? Defending the Humanities—and Literary Study. Pedagogy 1 October 2015; 15 (3): 577–585. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2917217 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2015 by Duke University Press2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.

This article seeks to center what lies before, beside, and beyond normative modes of linguistic communication in the classroom and in literary scholarship. Framed by my experiences with my disabled brother, I focus mainly on Disability and Difference, a section of English 2 that I developed and taught at Brooklyn College for five semesters between 2008 and 2010. Throughout, I pay particular attention to mental disability; stigmatized and silenced, it is often unspoken and unspeakable. I begin by outlining some of the ways that students can benefit from exploring disability and how it frustrates linguistic representation. I then discuss ways that academic discourse, as well as pedagogical practices and policies, may begin to better account for mental disability. I conclude by briefly considering a kind of disability aesthetics that privileges the inarticulate and inarticulable, one that might allow students and scholars to appreciate the extent to which literary studies is already enriched by the same kinds of non-normative articulations that are deprivileged in our modes of formal discourse.