Portfolios and pedagogy : an examination of ideology and use

Portfolio use in writing studies contexts is becoming ubiquitous and, as such, portfolios are in danger of being rendered meaningless and thus require that we more fully theorize and historicize portfolios. To this end, I examine portfolios: both the standardized portfolio used for assessment purposes and the personalized portfolio used for entering the job market. I take a critical look at portfolios as a form of technology and acknowledge some of the dangers of blindly using portfolios for gaining employment in the current economic structure of fast capitalism. As educators in the writing studies fields, it is paramount that instructors have a critical awareness of the consequences of portfolio creation on students as designers, lifelong learners, and citizens of a larger society. I argue that a better understanding of the pedagogical implications for portfolio use is imperative before implementing them in the classroom, and that a social-epistemic approach provides a valuable rethinking of portfolio use for assessment purposes. Further, I argue for the notions of meditation and transformation to be added alongside collection, selection, and reflection because they enable portfolio designers and evaluators alike to thoughtfully consider new ways of meaning-making and innovation. Also important and included with meditation and transformation is the understanding that students are ideologically positioned in the educational system. For them to begin recognizing their situatedness is a step toward becoming designers of change. The portfolio can be a site for that change, and a way for them to document their own learning and ways of making meaning over a lifetime.

Uncovering poiesis : the role of production in technical communication, work, and public life

This dissertation is a report on a collaborative project between the Computer Science and the Humanities Departments to develop case studies that focus on issues of communication in the workplace, and the results of their use in the classroom. My argument is that case study teaching simulates real-world experience in a meaningful way, essentially developing a teachable way of developing phronesis, the reasoned capacity to act for the good in public. In addition, it can be read as a "how-to" guide for educators who may wish to construct their own case studies. To that end, I have included a discussion of the ethnographic methodologies employed, and how it was adapted to our more pragmatic ends. Finally, I present my overarching argument for a new appraisal of the concept of techné. This reappraisal emphasizes its productive activity, poiesis, rather than focusing on its knowledge as has been the case in the past. I propose that focusing on the telos, the end outside the production, contributes to the diminishment, if not complete foreclosure, of a rich concept of techné.

International teachers in the American classroom : deposing the myth of monolingualism

An international graduate teaching assistant‘s way of speaking may pose a challenge for college students enrolled in STEM courses at American universities. Students commonly complain that unfamiliar accents interfere with their ability to comprehend the IGTA or that they have difficulty making sense of the IGTA‘s use of words or phrasing. These frustrations are echoed by parents who pay tuition bills. The issue has provoked state and national legislative debates over universities‘ use of IGTAs. However, potentially productive debates and interventions have been stalemated due to the failure to confront deeply embedded myths and cultural models that devalue otherness and privilege dominant peoples, processes, and knowledge. My research implements a method of inquiry designed to identify and challenge these cultural frameworks in order to create an ideological/cultural context that will facilitate rather than impede the valuable efforts that are already in place. Discourse theorist Paul Gee‘s concepts of master myth, cultural models, and meta-knowledge offer analytical tools that I have adapted in a unique research approach emphasizing triangulation of both analytic methods and data sites. I examine debates over IGTA‘s use of language in the classroom among policy-makers, parents of college students, and scholars and teachers. First, the article "Teach Impediment" provides a particularly lucid account of the public debate over IGTAs. My analysis evidences the cultural hold of the master myth of monolingualism in public policy-making. Second, Michigan Technological University‘s email listserve Parentnet is analyzed to identify cultural models supporting monolingualism implicit in everyday conversation. Third, a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy forum is analyzed to explore whether scholars and teachers who draw on communication and linguistic research overcome the ideological biases identified in earlier chapters. My analysis indicates that a persistent ideological bias plays out in these data sites, despite explicit claims by invested speakers to the contrary. This bias is a key reason why monolingualism remains so tenaciously a part of educational practice. Because irrational expectations and derogatory assumptions have gone unchallenged, little progress has been made despite decades of earnest work and good intentions. Therefore, my recommendations focus on what we say not what we intend.

Subverting the subject position : toward a new discourse about students as writers and engineering students as technical communicators

There is ample evidence of a longstanding and pervasive discourse positioning students, and engineering students in particular, as “bad writers.” This is a discourse perpetuated within the academy, the workplace, and society at large. But what are the effects of this discourse? Are students aware faculty harbor the belief students can’t write? Is student writing or confidence in their writing influenced by the negative tone of the discourse? This dissertation attempts to demonstrate that a discourse disparaging student writing exists among faculty, across disciplines, but particularly within the engineering disciplines, as well as to identify the reach of that discourse through the deployment of two attitudinal surveys—one for students, across disciplines, at Michigan Technological University and one for faculty, across disciplines at universities and colleges both within the United States and internationally. This project seeks to contribute to a more accurate and productive discourse about engineering students, and more broadly, all students, as writers—one that focuses on competencies rather than incompetence, one that encourages faculty to find new ways to characterize students as writers, and encourages faculty to recognize the limits of the utility of practitioner lore.