In the article “Pedagogical Approaches to Student Racial Conflict in the Classroom,” Penny A. Pasque et al. explore “some of the ways faculty address student conflict mind and around racial diversity in the classroom” (1). Pasque et al. support their exploration with a survey of 66 faculty members of diverse backgrounds, with analyses of the answers from their interviews. Their purpose is to discover the different ways that faculty address racial conflict in their classrooms in order to show the efficacy (and failures) of different pedagogical approaches to help teachers develop more effective strategies when addressing racial conflict. They direct their article to teachers who are concerned with diversity in the classroom and who would like to integrate racially-aware methods of teaching. As a student and possible future teacher, their conclusion was generalized but it was helpful to recognize which methods were seemingly ineffective and clearly ignorant, such as the “Let’s Not Make a Scene” and “Not in My Classroom” approaches. Although the conclusion basically said “it depends” it does ring true given the complexities and variables of every classroom setting, and it is up to the teacher to have an awareness of each environment.

In the article “Inventing the University,” David Bartholomae observes that students have to “invent the university . . . [and] learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community” (523). Bartholomae substantiates his observation by referencing the writing of Patricia Bizzell, as well as analyzing student essays. His purpose is to recognize the ways in which students grapple with academic language and discourse as basic writers in order to highlight the importance of analyzing student writing to better know their writing processes. He directs his article to teachers of basic writers and researchers of the writing process. As a student and possible future teacher, it was hard to pinpoint his argument and why it’s important. I kept thinking, “So what?” Yes, it’s clear that basic writers “invent the university” and try to speak in an academic tone before they’re fully ready to do so, and it was interesting to see his analyses of the student essays and where they succeeded/failed; however, it was unclear how this information could be used in pedagogy or be put to practical use when trying to assist student’s in the development of their writing.

In the article “Professing Multiculturalism: The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone,” Min-Zhan Lu explores “how to conceive and practice teaching methods which invite a multicultural approach to style, particularly those styles of student writing which appear to be ridden with ‘errors’” (467).  She shows her exploration and and method through anecdotal evidence of two writers that faced questions of their writing expertise, as well as a recount of an analysis with her students of a student’s writing response to an essay by Haunani-Kay Trask. Her purpose is to show a method that allows for both style and convention on the students’ own terms in order to offer a better way to teach within the realm of contact zones and multiculturalism, to have a realistic approach that allows to students to see the inequality in what is deemed correct or incorrect, but also how to navigate through a system that requires them to know what is “correct”. She directs her ideas to teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I understand the merits of her method, and understand that it is necessary to both address hegemony in academia whilst still teaching convention, although it always feels a little disappointing; however, I would say this is probably the most satisfying method I’ve come across as I always struggle with ideas on how to teach in a way that challenges the power structures whilst still giving students the tools they need to succeed in the system they have to navigate. 

In the article “‘Contact Zones’ and English Studies,” Patricia Bizzell proposes that in light of multiculturalism, “we need a radically new system to organize English studies . . . [and to] develop it in response to the materials with which we are now working” (460). Bizzell supports her proposal by referencing other pedagogical theories, especially Mary Louise Pratt’s theory of the “contact zone”. Her purpose is to urge English departments to restructure literary studies in order to accommodate multiculturalism and, in her words, “stimulate scholarship and give vitally needed guidance to graduate and undergraduate curricula . . . also lead us, in the multicultural literary archives, to stories of hope that can lend us all spiritual sustenance as we renew effort to make the United States a multicultural democracy” (466). She directs her proposal to teachers, especially English teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found Bizzell’s argument to be strong, although I would be concerned about the possibility that in her vision of reorganized studies, that historically marginalized voices could still be fainter than those of the ones in power when studying a particular “contact zone”, although this would probably be dependent upon individual classes, and not her proposal as a whole.

In the article “Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism,” Mike Rose reflects that cognitive theories and the claims surrounding them “lead to social distinctions that have important consequences, political as well as educational . . . [there are] problems with and limitations of this particular discourse about remediation” (326). Rose supports his reflection by reviewing the studies of Herman A. Witkin, hemisphericity, Jean Piaget, and orality-literacy. His purpose is to reveal the weaknesses within these studies and theories in order to prevent them from being used as a way to make sweeping generalizations about the intelligence of different groups, specifically those who are marginalized and remedial writers. I believe he directs his argument to teachers and researchers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found his explanations and examinations helpful, and his observations about the weaknesses in different cognitive theories compelling. Additionally, I find his observations about how these theories and claims can be racist, classist, and sexist, especially important. 

In the article “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer,” Andrea A. Lunsford asserts “most of our basic writing students are operating well below the formal-operations or true-concept formation stage of cognitive development, and hence they have great difficulty in ‘de-centering’ and performing tasks which require analysis and synthesis” (282). Lunsford substantiates her assertion by providing anecdotal evidence, referencing pedagogical and psychological theories, and providing assignment examples. Her purpose is to make teachers aware of the cognitive stage that basic writing students are at in order to better help students in their cognitive development and therefore their academic pursuits. She directs her ideas to writing teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found her evidence convincing, especially when reviewing her suggested assignment examples.

In the article, “Listening to Students: A Usability Evaluation of Instructor Commentary,” Brian Still and Amy Koerber argue that “although further application of usability-evaluation techniques to instructor commenting might be a fruitful new approach for increasing our understanding of the instructor– student relationship, there are important differences between the teacher– student relationship and the expert–novice relationship that is usually the focus of usability testing” (209). Still and Koerber support their argument through a survey of 54 students enrolled in the same writing course. Their purpose is to show the usability issues with teacher commentary in order to discover what teachers can do to make their commentary more decipherable and helpful to students. They direct their findings to teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found their evidence compelling, although a little disheartening since most of the students were only interested in “correcting” the errors instead of strengthening their writing.

In the article, “On Not Being a Composition Slave,” Maxine Hairston argues that the “eror-focused method of teaching writing does not work, and for good psychological and behavioral reasons” (118). Hairston supports her argument through anecdotal evidence, as well as references to other research articles on composition. Her purpose is to show that error-focused grading is harmful to both students and teachers in order to encourage teachers to try different methods of grading papers when teaching composition. She directs her article at composition teachers. As a student and possible future teacher, I found Hairston’s argument sound and I appreciated that she listed different approaches to teaching composition.

In the article, “Responding to Student Writing,” Nancy Sommers observes that “although commenting on student writing is the most widely used method for responding to student writing, it is the least understood” (148). Sommers supports her observation through a study of 35 teachers at NYU and UO and their comments on the first and second drafts of the same three student essays. Her purpose is to call attention to the ways that teachers’ comments on students’ writing can be vague and aimless in order to show the ways that commentary can be improved to help students develop their writing. She directs her article at teachers. As a student and a possible future teacher, I found Sommers’s evidence compelling, especially the comments examples that she integrated into her article. It really showed how the comments can be totally arbitrary.

In the article, “The Phenomenology of Error,” Joseph M. Williams suggests that “the categories of error all seem like they should be yes-no, but the feelings associated with the categories seems much more complex” (155). Williams supports this suggestion through various anecdotes and observations of error, as well as by referencing the writings (and errors) of his peers. His purpose is to showcase the errors of “gate-keepers” in order to present the absurdity of our error obsessed pedagogy. I believe he directed his article at teachers as well as strict grammarians. As a student and a possible future teacher, I found his evidence hilarious and refreshing. I found him very cheeky and I love that he concealed a joke in his essay and asked people to find the intentional errors in his writing.