"WITH": ARTICULATING A RESTORATIVE COMPOSITION PEDAGOGY by CYNTHIA DUGGAN MWENJA MICHELLE BACHELOR ROBINSON, COMMITTEE CHAIR DILIN LIU, COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR JAMES MCNAUGHTON JENNIFER STOLLMAN CINDY TEKOBBE A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2017 Copyright Cynthia Duggan Mwenja 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT In this project, I trace commonalities between the fields of restorative practices and composition pedagogy, then articulate a first-year writing course design to enact the resultant restorative composition pedagogy. I provide a thick description of the course design, syllabus, assignment sheets, and daily activities, then I analyze pre- and post-semester surveys from students who participated in the course. Using information from the student surveys as well as other artifacts from the semester, I conclude that restorative composition practices can offer a model for meeting composition pedagogy goals by providing an inclusive, egalitarian, and respectful classroom experience. ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family—immediate, extended, and chosen—who stepped in and stepped up to help and encourage me as I worked and wrote. In particular, I dedicate this work to Mwenja, Janine, Suze, Marian, Rosalyn, Lillian, and Mama—it may not have always been graceful, but we got through it together. Much love to you all. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am happy to have the opportunity to thank those who have helped me to complete this research project. Thanks first of all go to Michelle Bachelor Robinson, who championed my work before we ever met, and continued to remind me of my purpose throughout my coursework and this project. Thanks also to Dilin Liu for agreeing to co-chair and for modeling an engaged, supportive teaching and mentoring style. Additionally, I would like to thank all my committee members—Cindy Tekobbe, James McNaughton, and Jennifer Stollman—for their kind attention to and support of this project, and for agreeing to work with me on a very tight time schedule so that I could accept the job of my dreams. I would like to thank Sara Whitver for being a fabulous, helpful sounding board as I developed this project. Thanks also to Luke Niiler, Amy Dayton, and James McNaughton for responding thoughtfully and critically to early versions of this work; their collective comments helped tremendously as I developed and revised this project. I very much appreciate the support and friendship of my fellow graduate students— thanks go to all of them for their friendship and willingness to engage with my ideas. Lastly, thanks to the students in the Fall 2016 English 102 class at the University of Alabama who participated in this study; I literally could not have completed the project without them. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 Restorative Practices .......................................................................................................................2 The Project ....................................................................................................................................10 A REVIEW OF RESTORATIVE PRACTICES AND COMPOSITION PEDAGOGY LITERATURES ............................................................................................................................14 Create Community .........................................................................................................................15 Repair as Needed ..........................................................................................................................20 Transform When Possible .............................................................................................................22 Extending Restorative Practices ...................................................................................................25 TOWARD A RESTORATIVE COMPOSITION RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................30 Positionality ...................................................................................................................................32 Pre-research....................................................................................................................................34 Gathering Data ...............................................................................................................................37 Teacher Research ...........................................................................................................................42 Writing It Up ..................................................................................................................................45 Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................................................51 v RESTORATIVE COMPOSITION PRACTICES IN ACTION: A THICK DESCRIPTION OF THE FALL 2016 SEMESTER ................................................................................................53 The Setting .....................................................................................................................................55 Syllabus ..........................................................................................................................................59 Assignment Instructions, Unit Plans, and Unit Arcs .....................................................................71 Daily Routine .................................................................................................................................75 The Arc of the Semester ................................................................................................................78 Restorative Grading .....................................................................................................................103 Moments ......................................................................................................................................108 AN ANALYSIS OF FALL 2016 PRE- AND POST-SEMESTER SURVEYS ..........................112 Pre-semester Survey Results ........................................................................................................113 Post-Semester Survey Results......................................................................................................133 Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................................161 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................163 Reaching Restorative Composition Pedagogy Goals ..................................................................164 Room for Improvement................................................................................................................170 Implications..................................................................................................................................175 Future Research ...........................................................................................................................176 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................178 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................183 vi LIST OF FIGURES 1. Social Discipline Window ...................................................................................................... 4 2. Writing Process Chart ........................................................................................................... 86 3. Grade Distribution, Fall 2016 English 102 Class ............................................................... 108 4. Pre-semester Survey Question One ............................................................................... 115-16 5. Pre-semester Survey Question Two .................................................................................... 118 6. Pre-semester Survey Question Three .................................................................................. 121 7. Pre-semester Survey Question Four.................................................................................... 123 8. Pre-semester Survey Question Five ............................................................................... 125-26 9. Pre-semester Survey Question Six ................................................................................. 127-28 10. Pre-semester Survey Question Seven ................................................................................. 129 11. Pre-semester Survey Question Eight .................................................................................. 132 12. Post-semester Survey Question One ................................................................................... 137 13. Post-semester Survey Question Two .................................................................................. 140 14. Post-semester Survey Question Three ................................................................................ 143 15. Post-semester Survey Question Four ............................................................................. 145-46 16. Post-semester Survey Question Five ............................................................................. 147-48 17. Post-semester Survey Question Six ............................................................................... 149-50 18. Post-semester Survey Question Seven ................................................................................ 154 19. Post-semester Survey Question Eight ................................................................................. 157 20. Post-semester Survey Question Nine .................................................................................. 160 vii INTRODUCTION At their best, first-year composition classes enable students to improve their abilities to participate in an essential part of the human experience: communication. To take part in civil society and in the work force, people around the globe must now master an incredible array of communication skills and tools. First-year composition classes can help university students to learn these skills, which are vital to professional success as well as to effective participation in local and national affairs. According to the Council of Writing Program Administrators, students should emerge from first-year writing classes proficient in “rhetorical knowledge,” “critical thinking, reading, and composing [including source evaluation],” “composing processes,” and “knowledge of conventions” (“WPA Outcomes Statement”). Effective first-year writing classes can help students develop these proficiencies, as well as help them to see how to apply the skills in many other rhetorical settings in their lives. First-year composition classes do not always reach their full potential in helping students learn these skills. Many students respond to the content with claims of uselessness and dullness, and oftentimes this response is a result of some instructors not making clear the connections between class work and other composition tasks. As Mike Rose discusses in Lives on the Boundary, students from many socio-economic and cultural backgrounds do not see themselves represented in their readings or in the academy. As I have seen in my own teaching, some students believe that they are irredeemably “bad” writers or that there is only one “proper” way of writing that applies in all circumstances. Many English instructors focus mainly on the 1 “errors” in student writing, so students may feel defeated and unable to improve. Such experiences stand in the way of students receiving the full benefit of first-year composition instruction. The field of composition pedagogy does provide insights into more effective strategies that instructors can use to work with their students. Composition researchers such as Patricia Bizzell and Lisa Delpit have explored avenues for welcoming students from many socio- economic and cultural backgrounds into the classroom, as well as for providing course content that the students will perceive to be relevant and useful. Composition scholars such as Asao B. Inoue are re-evaluating grading practices so that assessment is more transparent and fair. The composition classroom can be an inclusive setting which mentors writing development, no matter who the students are and what the venue is. When students develop a wider array of composition skills, they can enter a larger number of discourse communities and use their composition and communication skills to improve their workplaces and the larger society. If our students are to have access to the vital tools of communication, we must realize that, as composition instructors, how we teach and communicate with our students matters. We can provide an inclusive and egalitarian classroom space where they can learn to improve their methods of communication and to transform themselves into capable rhetoricians. When we do provide such spaces, they reflect the ideals of Restorative Practices. Restorative Practices Within the field of composition studies, scholars have long examined multiple ways to include the full spectrum of students who enter the composition classroom; however, much of this scholarship remains contained in the small world of composition scholars and has not been 2
Description: