This article considers why, in the wake of Ernest Boyer's work, the promise of a transformation of university teaching has not been broadly realized and what that implies for faculty development projects. It discusses the assumptions that place the professional development of teaching outside of disciplinary boundaries, both literally and figuratively, and considers the consequences of that placement. It then turns to the scholarship of teaching and learning, considering what it offers to and implies about the disciplinary practices it proposes to transform. In response to this examination, the essay proposes that the Boyer Report attempted to alter teaching by arguing that teachers and the systems that support them needed to change, an argument that failed to convince college faculty to change. The article concludes with the proposal that the real exigence facing college faculty is that the way students raised in a culture saturated in electronic media learn is dramatically different than the way people learned a generation ago. That shift in learning is the exigence that requires a transformation of teaching.

“Guidelines for the Ethical Treatment of Students and Student Writing in Composition Studies” signals our increased awareness of the ethical obligations that attend our scholarship and research. Our adoption of research methods from other fields, particularly the social sciences, has heightened that concern. We must now consider the ethical obligations we assume when we teach those methods to students at the beginning of their academic careers.

Research Article| April 01 2005 Uncommon Ground: Narcissistic Reading and Material Racism Barbara Schneider Barbara Schneider Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2005) 5 (2): 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-5-2-195 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Barbara Schneider; Uncommon Ground: Narcissistic Reading and Material Racism. Pedagogy 1 April 2005; 5 (2): 195–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-5-2-195 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. © 2005 Duke University Press2005 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Articles You do not currently have access to this content.

Preview this article: Emancipatory Movements in Composition: The Rhetoric of Possibility by Andrea Greenbaum, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/55/2/collegecompositionandcommunication2753-1.gif

The project Andrea Greenbaum attempts in EmancipatoryMovements in Composition is both worthwhile and ambitious. The project is worthwhile because introducing newcomers, particularly graduate students, to the multiple disciplines that have been incorporated into critical pedagogy in the last decade can be daunting, and there is certainly room in the field for text that names and organizes them. The project is ambitious because it attempts to do this in mere one hundred pages, with additional pages devoted to an appended syllabus, notes, and citations. Greenbaum opens her book with personal narrative of the Passover story, drawing from it the lesson that human beings need to experience oppression-even if it is relived only mythically-in order to understand our social responsibility to counter and resist those forces that seek to dominate, repress, and disempower individuals (xi), setting the polemical tone she maintains through the rest of the work. She organizes the book around what she identifies as four key approaches to critical pedagogy for the writing classroom: neosophistic rhetoric, cultural studies, feminist studies, and postcolonial studies, examining each for what they offer writing teachers seeking to enact critical pedagogy in their classrooms. Her first two chapters offer brief historical development of sophistic and cultural studies approaches. Greenbaum begins with the reclamation of sophistic rhetoric, drawing particularly on Susan Jarratt, Thomas Kent, John Poulakos, Sharon Crowley, and handful of others. She proposes that this neosophistic contributes to rhetoric of possibility by drawing attention to the indeterminacy of language, an empowering shift from logos privileged in Western philosophy to mythos that invites disruptive stoof the frontier is reconstrued as collabo ative zone of cultur l and linguistic contact, a historical moment of meeting, clashing, and cooperating ulticultura encounters (66).

We regularly chastise students for placing quotation marks around words that are not direct quotations. Yet, as this research shows, professionals use nonstandard quotations routinely and to rhetorical advantage. After analyzing the various purposes nonstandard quotations serve, I argue student use of the marks jars us not because it departs from good practice but because, through them, students invoke voices we do not want to recognize.

This article proposes ethnomethodology as a theoretical approach for resolving the structure-agency binary and for treating the activities of writers in organizations as simultaneously embedded in and constitutive of organizational context. Structure is defined as those elements of social circumstances that writers orient to as relevant to their immediate writing task. In orienting to these elements, writers reproduce them as external and constraining social facts. The value of ethnomethodology is illustrated with data from a study examining the social practices that surrounded the writing of an evaluation report by two managers in an educational institution.