Misunderstanding the Assignment

Sarah Geil, Misunderstanding the Assignment Reading Response, Week 12

Part A

Most of my understanding of Rachel’s teaching theory, philosophy, and approaches to teaching composition come from the background section telling about Rachel rather than strictly observing her interactions with the students. Her family background of learning affects her teaching philosophy in similar ways that the various backgrounds influence the writing stances of her students. Her philosophy statement proclaims a lofty ambition to “teach students to reflect, and to understand why it is important to reflect, on the great issues which all profound writers have faced over the years and which we as human beings will undoubtedly face at some point in our lives” (Hunt 22). Unsurprisingly, Rachel’s own experiences as a student also impacts her theory. She hopes to view her students as valuable by teaching “every day as if there were an honored guest in the classroom” (Hunt 23). She is wise to note early on that students observe and learn from every action the teacher makes. The lessons do not simply come only from the lectures.

Rachel’s assignments seem to match the quote from her father that builds the mission statement of her teaching philosophy. The tasks she presents students encourage synthesis and the building of significant ideas. The students detect Rachel’s philosophy in the assignments in a way that is almost frustrating to them. As Jane remarks in a conference, “I’m not exactly sure what to change because I know you’re talking about how you don’t want it to be an ordinary comparing/contrasting paper, and you want it to be significant—like it is going to change the world or something” (Hunt 96). While Rachel’s theory is communicated well, she (quite naturally for such a lofty ambition), does not always equip her students with the tools necessary to initially fulfil her assignments and thus, her teaching philosophy’s mission. For example, in many instances, Rachel tells student some version of, “that’s fine. I’m not trying to tell you what to write” (Hunt 35). However, (and this is, as she even admitted, probably impacted by the nature of being observed), Rachel does fill in the student’s thoughts (Hunt 98). As the semester progresses, in some cases, Rachel’s conferences do match her philosophy. Jane said that Rachel led her in the right direction, towards significance and impact on everyday life (Hunt 111).

Rachel’s response to papers also builds off of her theory that she should teach like she would want her professors to teach her: “once the initial scan is through, however, she comments freely as she reads, adopting—until she gets to the end comment, at any rate—the role of a resistant reader” (81). While matching Rachel’s theory, the practice itself highlights inconsistencies in Rachel’s philosophy. While she wants to treat her students like she wants to be treated, she fails to see the difference in abilities to synthesize. Because of her educational background, Rachel could take the comments from professors and expound upon them, but her students were not yet able to reflect on the great issues of writers and all of humanity in the same way. They simply addressed the comments one by one in a way to check revision off of their list: “I just started at the beginning and went to the conclusion and changed it around. I scratched off each comment that was written down as soon as I changed it” (Hunt 110).

The sample papers represented an area of daily practice that led to miscommunication. The students read the sample papers and mimicked to the best of their ability. They assumed that Rachel was an easy grader because she told them she had given the sample a “B.” So they did the same and were upset when their grades were much lower (Hunt 99). The sample paper scenario also failed because the students were not prepared to copy correctly; they did not yet have the ability to mimic. The students assumed they needed to emulate the high vocabulary and wordy sentences, but they were unable to do that and faltered under that weight of not being able to create what they believed was necessary for success (Hunt 113).

I sympathize with the students in receiving a sample paper, building off of it, and struggling to understand the assignments. Were I asked to do the same assignments, I would have similar struggles as Rachel’s students. Growing up, I never had time to watch sitcoms. While I absolutely see that Rachel is trying to find a way to engage with students on a level they enjoy, this assignment would have been so much more work for me because I have such little experience with television. And I grew up in America; this assignment might be even more difficult for the ESL writer who struggles to pick up on the supremely American traditions present in the sitcoms. I think I would enjoy writing the second paper today (“to what extent are the characters controlled (or not controlled) by the society around them?” (Hunt 122), but it would take me a long time to sort out my thoughts. If it would take me so long today, I would have definitely struggled with it during my first year of college. Hunt excels at articulating the difficult developmental challenges facing first-year college students. While I absolutely think assignments should present some level of challenge, the tasks should also account for the general background of students as much as possible.

The developmental challenge is perhaps most exhibited in Rachel’s interactions with Rob. On one level, Rob is difficult because he is not always prepared: “Although Rachel manages to stare at him as though she has never in her life heard of a student coming to class unprepared, he says nothing in extenuation…” (Hunt 49). Rob also presented a particular difficulty because he was inconsistent in his communication with Rachel and the interviewers. His struggle with religion drastically impacts his writing, but Rachel is not privy to this critical piece of the puzzle: “Because Rob never mentions his Christian faith to her, she never considers the possibility that the two of them speak from opposite sides of a cultural divide as well as a developmental one” (104). This is particularly evident in the second paper. If Rachel could have found a way to meet Rob in his testimonial urges, and show the strength of a paper that combined research and testimony, then perhaps their conversations would have been more productive (Hunt 127).

Of course, Rachel learned that there were communication problems and developmental difficulties present in her classroom by participating in such a nerve-wracking project and then reading the results. By risking the censure that comes from allowing every move to be critiqued and every fault exposed, she does learn how to better relate to students like Rob in the future. Part of her learning of these lessons comes from the experience of teaching itself.

Part B

For Writing Research and Methodology, part of the proposal I’m learning to draft involves studying the transition from expressivist pedagogy to critical pedagogy. While reading Misunderstanding the Assignment, it struck me that this ethnography occurred during a fairly influential pedagogical paradigm shift in composition studies. Naturally, much of the examples and experiences are dated. But because of the time period in which this case study occurred, it retains importance in the glimpse it provides of the shift.

In many ways, Rachel’s television assignment seems to position the students as experts. She found something in popular culture that every student could relate to as every student is a member of a family is some form. But her very particular request for the assignment kept her as the expert rather than enabling the students to grasp the authority I think Rachel hoped they would feel.

If Rachel were to embrace the vision that her students are already writers, authors, and persuaders, I think she would be better prepared to encourage their strengths in writing. Michel, for example, is already an excellent writer who balked at assignments that required analysis (Hunt 134). He did not have the proper motivation to do the work, even though he was potentially one of the students Rachel could have reached most easily and significantly because writing was already a developed passion of Michael’s.

Carl seemed to me to be the most unfortunate victim of this demand for a specific analysis. Similarly to Michael, he had a desire to be a journalist but he lacked the ambition and authority. The final shreds of Carl’s confidence unravel with the grade of the C. It does seem to put entirely too much pressure on the teacher to say that a student would be a journalist instead of a truck driver because of the pedagogy and theory she expressed and enacted in the classroom.

Part C

The scope and goal of this ethnography is just as impressive, and perhaps in some ways unattainable, as Rachel’s teaching philosophy. The original research question drives a very important project. I wonder if it would be possible to replicate such a large-scoped study with the ethical considerations that exist today. Without the appendix that offered comments on the methods and the ethics, I think I would have had really struggled with some of the content.

The physical descriptions about students in the beginning and the added commentary on their personality initially raised my questions about the reliability of the study. While I do the same things when I “people-watch” it felt strange to read the assumptions in an academic study. I’m not sure all of these would be included in today’s version of the study.

The personal motivations and goals of the researchers also clearly became an issue (Rita), but I wondered about it throughout the book. Each researcher brings stories and purposes to any research they do, even if they proclaim to be totally unbiased. With this many personalities and variables in the students and the research team, there were bound to be difficulties in conveying complete understanding. This topic is not one that lends itself to a total immunity of ideas either. The teaching of students, especially in concern to teaching them writing and life-skills like critical thinking, is bound to emphasize these variables and differences. Furthermore, were the researchers friends with Rachel? How big was the department? Did they all know each other? Were they competitors for jobs?

I think I would enjoy seeing Rachel’s exact assignment sheets and syllabus. Were any of the assignments dictated by lower division studies at her university? I would also enjoy knowing exactly what her background is and what classes she was currently enrolled in. A comparative case study with a different teacher would also be interesting.

The study also brings up the unaddressed question of interference. Should the researchers have shared their knowledge that the miscommunications were potentially going to cause a student to drop out of college? In many ways, this question might better be answered by studying the ethics of journalism. I know just enough to know that the answer is not easy.

Ultimately, while I questioned and struggled with the direct impact on student’s learning (“I suspect that the overall impact of the study on the class may have been more negative than positive” (145)), the study is still important and very eloquently conveyed. The interweaving of current events and dialogues made this image of a classroom in Spring of 1999 still important in 2017. The researchers and Rachel do a good job of pointing out that as a case study, their experience is not altogether generalizable while still presenting it as valuable and significant.

#Compositiontheory #TeachingComposition #MisunderstandingtheAssignment