Preview this article: Teaching for Student Change: A Deweyan Alternative to Radical Pedagogy, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/47/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8690-1.gif

Preview this article: Functions of Outlining Among College Students in Four Disciplines, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/29/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15335-1.gif

Preview this article: Community in the Expressivist Classroom: Juggling Liberal and Communitarian Visions, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/57/1/collegeenglish9149-1.gif

A composition researcher and psychiatrist report findings from their 3-year study of the revision of the most important book in the mental health profession: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III). This 500-page diagnostic taxonomy defines some 250 mental disorders, and it functions for the field as a charter document, shaping the way mental illness is understood, treated, and studied. The revision project, which culminates in 1994 with the publication of DSM-IV, is a 6-year project involving some 1,000 psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. In this study the authors examine the DSM revision using three methodologies: in Part I they trace the history of the DSM classification system; in Part II they analyze published accounts of the revision by project leaders; and finally, in Part III they observe the revision process as it was actually carried out in one of the 13 work groups. The authors conclude that the revision of DSM functions less to change the text than to achieve certain social and political effects. They find the revision works to further entrench the biomedical model of mental disorder, to maintain the dominance of psychiatry within the mental health field, and to enhance the prestige of psychiatry in relation to other medical specialties.

under attack, and social constructionism-the view that good writers must master the accepted practices of a discourse community-was widely adopted as an alternative. The purpose of this article is to defend expressivism against this attack, particularly against two charges. First, responding to the charge that expressivism, following the romantics, is tied to the ideal of the isolated writer, Steve Fishman argues on historical grounds that it was the social reform dimension of German romanticism that inspired expressivism. Second, Lucille McCarthy responds to the charge that expressivism disempowers students because it does not help them learn disciplinary and professional languages. She presents Fishman's class as one which is committed both to the mastery of philosophic method and to the development of student voices, committed, that is, to achieving social constructionist goals within an expressivist environment. Part I presents a theoretical perspective on expressivism; Part II shows the practical implementation of that theory in the classroom.

This naturalistic study, coauthored by a composition specialist and a philosopher, explores the learning experiences of college students in an Introduction to Philosophy course and the learning experiences of the research collaborators themselves. The researchers identify conflicting ways of knowing in class discussion, student writing, and within their own interdisciplinary collaboration. They then ask questions about how these ways of knowing interact and with what effects. In order to answer these questions the researchers drew upon student data they collected in two consecutive semesters as well as the close records they kept of their own collaborative work. Four research methods were used: observation, interviews, composing-aloud protocols, and text analysis. Conclusions are drawn from the data regarding the benefits for students and researchers of juxtaposing multiple epistemological perspectives. Also presented are conclusions about the learning contexts that promote epistemic growth. The textual form of this study is “heteroglossic,” that is, certain sections are written by the researchers, certain sections by the teacher-researcher, and others are coauthored by both.

Preview this article: A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing Across the Curriculum, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/21/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15574-1.gif