On Shipka's Process Compositions

While I can appreciate Jody Shipka's suggestions toward a class in which students composed non-alphabetic texts only, I can't help but see the drawbacks to such a class. But before I become all negative and start sounding hoarse - what with the constant cries of "get off my lawn" - I want to talk about a few of the things that I find valuable in the reading.

I think that the general idea of having a composition classroom that explores different ways of "writing" is valuable not only at the theoretical level, but also at the practical one. By imagining a classroom that doesn't prescribe to the "freewriting, draft, revision" formula, we can address the notion that it's possible to compose differently. We can isolate each step and examine if there's a different / better way to go about it.

Example - If we isolate the process of revision and look at it through a non-alphabetic filter, we might discover useful strategies and assignments to enhance our own understanding of revision.

Because I wonder what a ballet-shoe revision looks like. Or a revised video. Is a revised video the same as a differently-edited one? Or does the composer go back to the field to take more footage? Is that a feasible thing to do? Maybe that moment for making the video has passed.

Can a moment for revising an essay pass too? Can it be "too late" to go back into the field and get "more footage?"

I don't believe this to be true, but perhaps it is for some students. Once they are "finished" with an essay, going back becomes this incredibly difficult endeavor. And maybe it's more than just being lazy -- maybe there's something to this complaint.

--

Sorry, I got a little off topic. 

I also believe that multimodality should be taught in a different sort of class than a FYC classroom. Otherwise, we run the risk of multimodality as just being this "container"  that content can be poured into. And the thought of teaching to each individual medium while still addressing the needs of some of my students who are struggling with academic writing makes me wonder if this multimodal approach should happen later in a college career.

Because there is some value in what we're teaching now, right? Even if it's hard to pinpoint places in the "real world" that well-formulated essays come into play, there is value in teaching students to write to certain specifications, utilizing certain styles that they may or may not have to use later in their lives.

So I'm conflicted on the whole issue. As much as I enjoyed reading about all the different projects that students really took to - engaging the material in a way that makes sense to them, I worry about some things that we lose. Though the interpretive dance project was probably spectacular to watch and academically rigorous, do we lose the sense of communication that writing seems to rely on? What did the students watching the dance think while it was happening? Was it confusing and disorienting? Does that matter at all?

And with all the successes of the program, what about the failures? How did Shipka judge that a particular presentation wasn't acceptable? How do we take away some of the subjectivity of grading? Or does that not really matter in a whole composition course?

--