I ran across this article last year while browsing through journals in the library and thought it was humorous. I thought of it again when we read Bartholomae. In this article by Philip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer, the authors first set out to define what bullshit is, then discuss the ways in which bullshit is an aspect of academic rhetoric. The humorous (and most likely intended) irony is that all the while they are writing in a very traditional academic style which is, in and of itself, often associated with the very claims of bullshit they are examining. The main idea is that it matters not whether the content of the bullshit itself is true or false, but that bullshitters misrepresent themselves and their intentions (375). Eubanks and Schaeffer examine various types and purposes of bullshit, as well as various reasons one might engage in bullshitting, including representing a 'constructed self', gamesmanship, pleasure, reputation and superiority. "To sum up, prototypical bullshit has to do with a purposeful misrepresentation of self, has the quality of gamesmanship, and . . . is at least potentially a lie"(380). In the second half of the article, the authors examine academic writing, determining what features make it prototypical and how those features might be construed to be bullshit. One important aspect is the use of jargon, which seems to many non-academic readers to merely confuse for the purpose of elevating the author's status. "Often academic writers could be clearer but prefer to serve up something that sounds like bullshit" (382). They point out that students imitate this style in their own writing, and are rewarded for it. In addressing the issue of audience, the authors make a statement that is very reminiscent of Lave and Wenger's communities of practice in Situated Learning: "much academic publication, especially by young scholars, aims to qualify the author for membership in a group of specialists" (382). As we discu

Author Jane E. Hindman uses her "personal" writing, through her identity as an alcoholic, a feminist, and a professor of rhetoric, to illustrate how to make writing matter, and to argue for personal writing (which she also refers to as "embodied rhetoric") as a means to "illuminate the theory and practice of teaching composition" (92). She examines how the process of personal writing can evolve into academic writing, that the two are not mutually exclusive. For those who were fascinated by the Lave and Wenger account of Nondrinking Alcoholics as a form of apprenticeship, this may be an interesting read, as she explores the concepts of personal identity and social discourse practices through her experiences with Alcoholics Anonymous.

This is an RSA animation of a lecture given by Sir Ken Robinson, a proponent of creativity and innovation in education (see http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/who for more information about him). This is an interesting and often humorous look at some general trends in modern public education. Though there is nothing that directly relates to teaching writing, there is much here that may contribute to the topic of failure, and to the importance of learning in social contexts. Robinson concludes that collaboration is the stuff of growth, it is our natural learning environment.

This video is a very entertaining whiteboard animation of a talk given at RSA (described on their website, http://www.thersa.org, as "an enlightenment organisation committed to finding innovative practical solutions to today's social challenges") by author Dan Pink (for more, see http://www.danpink.com/about). The question he poses, is "what motivates us?" The common belief that people will work harder for a bigger reward is found to be true only when the work involves simple, mechanical skills. When the work requires even rudimentary cognitive skills, a surprising reversal occurs: the larger the reward, the poorer the performance. Pink states that engagement requires three factors: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Though his presentation is addressed to the business world, I think that he's really addressing fundamental aspects of human nature that can be applied in education as well. For example, his claim that crappy products are the result when profit is separated from purpose, can be applied to education as well, when grades are separated from meaningful learning.

In "Exploring the Impact of a High-Stakes Direct Writing Assessment in Two High School Classrooms," Ketter and Pool (2001) use a case study to examine the effects of standardized direct writing assessments on instruction and on student affect. They used surveys, interviews, student work, case notes, and curriculum plans to closely examine how teachers and students in two Maryland high school classrooms were impacted by the state's high-stakes writing assessment. The two classes were designed for students who had previously failed the Maryland Writing Test, with the specific intention of helping those students to pass the direct writing test, which is required for high school graduation. Over half of the students in the two classes were identified as members of families of low socio-economic status. Ketter & Pool found that the primary factor negatively influencing instructional methodologies and student and teacher affect is the failure of instruction and assessment to address "how differences in discourse styles embedded in communities have a powerful effect on how children see their world and communicate about it with others" (369). In this way, students from non-mainstream culture are marginalized by the school system. Ketter & Pool recommend that school and community stakeholders work together to devise teaching and assessment practices that "take into consideration the rich variety of American culture and the complexity of literacy instruction that result[s] in a student's ability to make meaning" (386).

The link I've included is to the stable URL, which only displays the first page. Sorry -- you will have to log in to JSTOR to read the entire article.