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.

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.