In the article “When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own,” Jacqueline Jones Royster examines “moments of personal challenge that seem to have import for cross-boundary discourse” (29). Royster supports her examination by giving anecdotal evidence, divided into three “scenes” that she explains and accompanies with the work of Black writers and scholars. Her purpose is to examine to the notion of subjectivity and how this interacts with human difference to acknowledge them as a complex reality in order to highlight the need for the academic community to be more in tune with the discourse, policies, and practices and how they can be more aware and inclusive of difference. As a student and possible future teacher I found Royster’s approach to connecting her “moments of challenge” to cross-boundary pedagogy captivating. I especially liked her spin on Cornel West’s idea that “someone gave Miles Davis a trumpet” and how she applied it to bell hooks and other African American women, and tied it in to the concepts of hybridity and “authentic” voice.

In the article, “Inviting students to determine for themselves what it means to write across the disciplines,” Brian Hendrickson and Genevieve Garcia de Mueller propose “the possibility of re-envisioning the role of the composition classroom within the broader literacy ecology of colleges and universities largely comprised of students from socioeconomically and ethno-linguistically underrepresented communities” (74). Hendrickson and Garcia de Mueller support their proposal through anecdotal evidence of a composition course and presenting the findings of pedagogical researchers, in particular those of Juan C. Guerra. Their purpose is to present an approach to writing programs while using a WAC/WID initiative in order to better serve students who are typically underrepresented in pedagogical strategies when trying to teach how to write across disciplines. They direct their article to teachers, scholars, and practitioners who want to see how WAC/WID can be approached with a writing across difference initiative. As a student and possible future teacher, I found their article as a whole a bit confusing. I wish they would have better explained WAC/WID because I’m still not really sure exactly what it means and how “writing across difference” is different or how they’re connected. I did find the examples of the students’ reflections on the class helpful in understanding the processes that the authors described when constructing the rubrics as a class contributed to the students’ understanding of writing, discourse, and literacy.

In the article “Where Do We Go from Here? Toward a Critical Race English Education,” Lamar L. Johnson proposes “Critical Race English Education (CREE) as a theoretical and pedagogical construct that tackles white supremacy and anti-black racism within English education and ELA classrooms” (102). Johnson supports his proposal through anecdotal evidence and utilizing autoethnography and counterstorytelling. His purpose is to show how CREE can be used as a pedagogical practice in order to cultivate a classroom that is conscious of racial justice issues of the past and present (police brutality, mass incarceration of Black people, and grassroots activism). He directs his article to English teachers who want to create environments that celebrate Blackness and teaches Black children that their language, literacies, and humanity matter. As a student and possible future teacher, I found Johnson’s exploration of CREE and his own experiences as a Black male educator especially important in today’s climate. Recently I read an article about how COVID-19 is disproportionately affecting Black and Brown communities, even though most people are reporting that it has been an “equal opportunity virus” or “non-discriminatory”. I found it interesting that he notes that many teachers want a step-by-step instruction on how to “do” CREE in the classroom, and that he doesn’t provide this. I was initially surprised by this; however, his response that our state of being, heart, and mind has to change was, I feel, in line with his approach and CREE.

In the article/speech “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key,” Kathleen Blake Yancey suggests that “literacy today is in the midst of a tectonic change” (298). Yancey substantiates her argument through anecdotal evidence, statistics on English departments and education. Her purpose is to show that English studies are shifting and changing in order to advocate for transforming writing studies and developing a new curriculum to keep the field relevant. She directs her article to composition teachers who are invested in the continuance of composition studies, and her speech to the audience at CCCC, undoubtedly the same teachers. As a student and possible future teacher I found her argument compelling, although hard to follow. I feel like it makes a great speech; however, when reading it as an article I had trouble identifying exactly what point she was trying to make.

In the article “From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing,” Diana George argues “throughout the history of writing instruction in this country the terms of debate typical in discussions of visual literacy and the teaching of writing have limited the kinds of assignments we might imagine for composition” (11). George supports her argument through a review of the history of visual literacy from theorists and pedagogical researchers, as well as giving examples of what her students produced when asked them to create a visual argument. Her purpose is to review how the idea of visual literacy has transformed through time in order to show the merits of using a visual approach in composition. She directs her article to composition teachers who are interested in various strategies to teach writing in a visual world. As a student and possible future teacher I found her history of visual communication in writing studies thorough. I was particularly happy that she included her assignment prompt, as it is an example of a practical way to incorporate visual literacy into a course. 

In the article “Research Yields Tips on Crafting Better Syllabi,” Paula Wesley suggests that “many professors don’t give much thought to what students take away from their syllabi . . . [they] may want to borrow a page of two from a few researchers who have formally pondered the question” (A11). Wasley supports her suggestion by providing evidence from various professors and their research. Her purpose is to give suggestions to professors in order to help them craft better syllabi for their courses that are more helpful to students. She directs her article to professors who may or may not think that the content of their syllabi matters to students. As a student and possible future teacher, I found the tips to be useful in some respects; however, I didn’t agree with the section titled “Assert Your Authority”. I agree that it’s good to give students clear guidelines on what the expectations are for both the students and the professor, but the the idea of authority is what made me hesitate. It’s complicated though, because professors are an authority in some way, and if you don’t have some some appearance of authority, it could result in students not taking you seriously. 

In the article “Teaching is Accommodation: Universally Designing Composition Classrooms and Syllabi,” Ann-Marie Womack argues that what we think of accommodation is actually “the most basic act of art and teaching. It is not the exception we sometimes make in spite of learning, but rather the adaptations we continually make to promote learning” (494). Womack supports her argument by reviewing theories of disability and universal design, and by providing anecdotal evidence of what has worked and not worked in her own classrooms. Her purpose is to give teachers a better understanding of what accommodation really means in order to show that there are ways to make different elements of a classroom setting more accessible to all, not only differently abled students, but also students in general. She directs her article to composition teachers who are concerned about applying inclusivity to their classrooms to better serve their differently abled students. As a student and possible future teacher I found Womack’s syllabi examples particularly helpful. I also felt as though she acknowledged the problems with universal design, where it can become too “one size fits all” and actually make a course less accessible to some students. 

In the article “Gender Equity in the Classroom and Beyond: 12 Evidence Based Teaching Strategies to Create a Productive and Inclusive Classroom Climate,” Jessie B. Ramey describes 12 strategies for teachers to encourage productivity and inclusivity in their classrooms. She supports the strategies by citing 7 sources from which she gathered her information. Her purpose is to give teachers a simple list of strategies in order to show teachers how to foster inclusivity for all students in their classrooms. She directs her article to teachers who are concerned with creating a productive and inclusive environment. As a student and possible future teacher, I found her list extremely helpful, especially the section, “Practice inclusive classroom behaviors,” as it shows that even the small actions can influence the classroom environment in a positive or negative way.

In the article “Feminism in Composition: Inclusion, Metonymy, and Disruption,” Joy Ritchie and Kathleen Boardman explore “how feminism has functioned over the past three decades to shape and critique our understandings of the gendered nature of writing, teaching, and institutions” (597). Ritchie and Boardman enact their exploration by surveying articles and notes from different academic journals as well as the writings from feminist scholars. Their purpose is to show the different narratives of feminism and the history of it within composition studies in order to highlight the strengths and possible weaknesses of different feminist strategies within academia. I believe they direct their article to all who study/research/teach English, especially those who are concerned with implementing and establishing feminist knowledge and theory within the discourse. As a student and possible future teacher, I found their survey of feminist literature especially helpful, as I don’t believe I’ve encountered a history of feminist scholarly writing such as this one. Additionally, I found the critiques of each strategy category to be fair and insightful, like how disruption can be empowering but fleeting, and how inclusion can “highlight deficiency” (604).

In the article “Composing as a Woman,” Elizabeth A Flynn argues that “difference is erased in a desire to universalize” (583). Flynn substantiates her argument by exploring “feminist research on gender differences in social and psychological development,” as well as examining the differences of four student essays (two women and two men), and examples of her pedagogical strategies. Her purpose is to show how the research she surveys can be applied to the examination of student writing in order to make suggestions on how composition can move forward with a feminist lens. She directs her article to teachers, particularly those who are looking for ways to empower their female students in their writing. As a student and a possible future teacher, I found Flynn’s article and observations a little contradictory, as she points out herself after reviewing the student essays; however, I did find the examples of her pedagogical strategies helpful as they are concrete ways to implement what she is advocating for.