"This Schedule is Subject to Change"

As preparation for summer session, I have just finished revising my course description and assignments for English 101.  The language I use for talking about writing in these documents is the result of lo-these-many years of thinking about what I do as both teacher and writer. (I had to look up the phrase "lo-these-many years" which I wanted to write as oh these many years.  I had the meaning right if not the exact word) Thus I tell students the course is an "opportunity," that writing is a "process" of, among other things, "passionately pursuing" ideas. (actually I say "your own ideas"--a compromise based on my belief that the pursuit of ideas for young people has more value if those ideas are thought to be their own).  I say that students "will do" certain things during the semester, as opposed to they "must."  And I follow the advice to use active voice, opting for agency over officiousness:  not "This schedule is subject to change" but "I will change the schedule as necessary." 

But I do wish I was better at carrying this language over throughout the course.  For instance, I am happy with my philosophy of writing as individual and social.  It informs what I do:  teaching writing as an inquiry process that may or may not begin with a desire within ourselves--to know, to say-- but also as a product, something we share with others. I lose this language, though, in my day to day work with students.  I know this but I have not come up with a way to retrieve it. 

My course description (I learned to call it such as a grad student and it wasn't until much later that I learned that other faculty call it a syllabus) is a document I've been revising, naturally, for years.  This time, however, I forced myself to cut a lot of the redundancy.  The repetitions were obvious but still difficult to let go of.  For instance, I didn't like talking about grades at the same time as I talked about the work of the course.  Same with policies.  So for a long time I had separate sections: 1) describe the work , 2) explain how I evaluate the work and 3) state policies.  This kept points and penalties separate from writing in a way that was important to me.  But oh it made the document long--could I really blame students for not reading it all?

So I compromised.  It's still long but less so.  I have never wavered from the belief that the course description (not the syllabus, which I consider a schedule and policy statement as opposed to a description) is a crucial document for the teacher of the course; unlike the assignments, it's more for me than for my students.  At the beginning of the course, students are unlikely to have much appreciation for the subtle distinctions I worry over: when to use "we" as opposed to "you," for instance, in describing the work of the class.  I'm suddenly thinking that I should ask my students re-read the course description at the end of the semester when they might understand a little bit more what I'm talking about.  Maybe in the final reflection on the course?

Susan recently used the word contextualizing in describing one of the things she wants her students in research writing to do.  I like this term better than "situating oneself within the conversation."  I'm not sure why.  The conciseness? but also I tend to think of "conversation" as cliche for comp teachers and situating has become jargon (how is situate different from locate yourself?)   One of the things I want to do is de-mystify the moves good writers make as they develop their ideas.  I wish I had more of these moves to offer first year students other than on the other hand and for example.  But I wonder if it will just come back to narrate, describe, compare etc?  I am reminded that I need to address coherence earlier in the course and remember to illustrate the generative power of the so called transitional phrases. 

I remember when handbooks used to have a section on creating emphasis.  Maybe they still do.  It was seen as sentence work or sentence variety.  I've been teaching something called "heat." I think it's a concept Susan told me about that she got from a talk that Dave Bartholomae gave (maybe a workshop on working with sentences?)  Anyway, I use Gibson's work on the "sweet" style and modify it: heat is created through the use of intensifiers and emotion words and I'm not sure what else.  What else goes into sentences where it sounds like the writer is truly committed to what he/she has to say?  ah "truly"--an intensifier, committed--an emotion word.  Yet it's in the passive voice.  I will have students find sentences in the books they are reading and we can analyze them.  oh I like that idea.