In my attempts to be productive in all areas of my life, I've been seriously slacking on posting. Since the last post, I've read:
Rhetoric and Reality by James Berlin
Keywords in Composition Studies ed by Paul Heilker and Peter Vanderburg
Fragments of Rationality by Lester Faigley
Writing Without Teachers by Peter Elbow
A Teaching Subject by Joseph Harris
Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work ed Gary Olson.
Whew!
For now, suffice it to say that I've been reading.. a LOT. But I'm actually enjoying it. The library, however, probably hates it, since I now have the PE/PN section of almost every library in WI collected in my apartment. Good times.
Good news: I'm really starting to see how the texts "talk to" each other, how they are responding to similar concerns in different ways, and different concerns altogether. I've decided that the major issue I want to focus on (for the prelim exam, perhaps) is how composition studies has conceived, and treated, the split between theory and practice. Additionally, how has the split (and subsequent calls for joining the two) affected the discipline of composition studies as a: field/discipline, subject, practice, and epistemology? Can there be a reconciliation of theory and practice, and what would that mean for the teaching of composition/rhetoric?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment