SubscribeStudents entering the university have been taught to find answers. They have been raised in a culture in which instant access to information is not only possible, but also commonplace as well as expected. Standardized tests teach them that even their own discursive practices have "right" and "wrong" answers. Students coming from this environment have a good number of advantages; however, they have little practice in critical analysis or logical argument. Assertions using such words as "bias" and "opinion" substitute for arguments, a practice embedded not only in digital media but in the mass media as well. These rhetorical practices work against students when they enter the arena of academic discourse.
At the same time, this environment does afford them a number of advantages. Students entering the university in our digital age have been raised in a culture in which instant access to information is not only possible, but also commonplace -- even expected. That "to Google" is now a verb is one of the most accurate indicators of this phenomenon. Furthermore, being born into a connected society, they have had a lifelong ability to share their thoughts and ideas in a public forum without an editorial gatekeeper. I have taught various writing courses since 2005, and although students - especially freshmen - typically have little trouble expressing agreement or disagreement with a position at the beginning of each semester, I often notice that they cannot fully articulate a logical argument for or against that agreement when they engage with academic or public issues.
My goals in teaching directly address these particular tendencies and proclivities. I engage them in writing about topics that are of direct interest to them such as recent news or scientific research that directly involves their generation or region. Overall, I draw them them into the broader cultural conversation and ask them to explore the multiple arguments and tools that affect these interests, the very multiplicity of which pushes them to assess and discern at greater levels of complexity, to move beyond the commonplace "two sides to every issue" concept and toward an understanding that even the most pedestrian of issues is affected by a wide range of arguments and attitudes. Ultimately, my goal for them is to be able to present a logical, researched position within that conversation, no matter the point of entry.
Ultimately, my approach is - as my education might assert - rhetorical. My students grow to understand that their work needs to be approached situationally: exigence, audience, constraints, available resources, and a fitting response. In order for this approach to work, the assignment must be stated as clearly as possible. The teaching of rhetoric and writing offers a unique opportunity to motivate these students to improve their critical thinking skills through their desire to engage. I believe that affording them as many opportunities to enter into an ongoing conversation as possible through low-stakes, focused writing and discussion in directed peer groups can help them build their confidence as well as their analytical skills, teaching them how to tap into their need for engagement in a productive manner. In short, by practicing argument as frequently as possible in smaller, more focused tasks, they gain a critical perspective and also develop an argumentative framework, which will ultimately benefit them once they arrive at higher-stakes academic writing assignments.
As a doctoral student, I have made significant contributions to pedagogy and scholarship on the NCSU Campus. My first year was spent as the graduate consultant to our Campus Writing and Speaking Program, performing research and developing campus-wide workshops for faculty interested in incorporating writing and speaking in their courses. I've maintained my interest in pedagogy over the past few years, presenting my research at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). I have also led faculty workshops on using blogs and wikis in the classroom twice, once at the CCCC convention as the co-leader of a roundtable and once to our First Year Writing Program faculty.
