This Post is based on, “Race and Writing assessment” by Valerie Balestar, more specifically Chapter 4, How Writing Rubrics Fail.
It was originally a practicum journal entry that I wrote during my Writing Mentor internship.
I Found this portion of the reading interesting, “Because of their powerful influence in instruction, rubrics announce forcefully how we define “good” writing. Unfortunately, rather than opening a dialog about culturally specific notions of “good writing,” rubrics have become a means for defining a standard in the service of inter-rater reliability. In this case, efficiency trumps dialog.” In other words, a sizable portion of the learning dialogic falls to the wayside, as result of our strict adherence to writing rubrics. This prompted me to question my classmates “Do you think that there is a line between writing as an art and writing as a science? Technical versus Artistic writings will have extreme differences in rubrics too I think.” To which, most of them agreed.
The reading goes to advocate “that writing skill and writing evaluation are “dynamic, variable, and contextually–dependent” and require “negotiating sets of expectations and purposes that may vary across readerships” This means that gender, ethnicity and background are all factors which influence writing, and these factors are, in a sense, devalued by traditional writing rubrics and the strict adherence to them.
The reading goes on to detail several kinds of Rubrics:
- Acculturationist Rubrics: “Acculturationist rubrics aim for “standard” English, posited as a stable and single entity, appropriately the sole language variety to be used in schools or academic circles.” The goal here is to eradicate slang, AAVE and other vernacular which can only be recognized as nothing else but “bad” English.
- Accommodationist Rubrics: Is a step in the right direction, “the accommodationist seeks to embrace multilingual students with the goal of bridging home and academic literacies.” This is the rubric I think I’d likely advocate for the most as “Code-switching” is something I find easy and comfortable. I can even Code switch into different styles like the Southern Bell, Florida AAVE, (Uk)Birmingham, Japenglish and even Spanglish. Standard English as “the language of power”, does strike a cord with me but I’m not sure about the logistics behind that.
- Multicultural Rubrics: “Multicultural pedagogies recognize the value of language diversity and the equal stature of all language varieties.” This is only an issue for me because all languages are not yet equal, just think about the number of lawyer fluent in AAVE versus those who aren’t. One thing I can definitely agree with though is “Multilingual students bring many creative resources to language production; these should be tapped, not discouraged or relegated to spoken discourse”
The message of the reading is clear, that “we too often unwittingly perpetuate assessment practices that penalize students who employ language variety. The policies we enact must include professional development, encouragement of multiculturalism, and tolerance of all varieties and types of World Englishes. Designing multilingual writing rubrics may not by itself solve the problem, but it will be an important step in the process.”
References:
- Author Last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year Published). Title of work. Publisher.
- Balestar, V. (Year Published Unknown) Race and Writing Assessment, Chapter 4, How Writing Rubrics Fail. (Publisher Unknown
This Journal Entry Based on a Paper written in Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 15, No. 2 (2018), By Justin B Hopkins, of Franklin Marshal College, Entitled Preferred Pronouns in writing Center Reports.
This article explores the rigidity of gender norming social structures. It swiftly and immediately compares the assumptions surrounding gender and gender identity to oppression and demands revolution and change.
Based on a visual form of protest at Franklin Marshall college, a Survey was conducted, the Survey questions were:
- Overall, how comfortable were you with being asked about your preferred pronouns? (Likert Scale 1-5)
- Overall, how well did you understand why you were being asked about your preferred pronouns? (Likert Scale 1-5)
- Overall, how positively or negatively do you perceive the Center’s policy to ask tutees about their preferred pronouns? (Likert Scale 1-5)
- Would you describe your perception here? What, if any, positive effects resulted from the questions? What, if any, negative effects resulted from the questions?
- Do you recall your initial reaction to being asked about your preferred pronouns? If so, would you share that here?
- Do you have any suggestions for how to better implement the policy of asking tutees about their preferred pronouns
Only 59 of 336 students completed the survey. Which to me sounded like a majority of students were not even willing to engage with the topic and that only students who viewed the topic favorably or at worst, neutrally even bothered to take the survey. This is corroborated by the part of the essay where it says: “Most students said that they were comfortable being asked for their preferred pronouns (71%),
that they understood the reasons for the question (87%),
and that they perceived the policy positively (60%).
Unfavorable answers for these three questions were less than 17%.”
The reason for this article is summed up where it says, “normalizing the idea that gender isn’t a binary and that it is often in flux, and that choosing a pronoun is very much a representation of choosing who you are as opposed to you being defined by your gender.”
The point is, people should be allowed to define themselves from the ground up and not just based on properties that are out of their control, and by simply asking someone to specify a gender or to use a requested pronoun is giving power to the idea that your destiny could and should be in your control. I tend to believe I was blessed to have been born to the class of “male”. Why? Because of the Patriarchy! This isn’t to say I’m not at all Feminist, but I’ll take my “W”s where I can get them.
References:
- Hopkins, J. B. (2018). Preferred pronouns in writing center reports. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 15(2).
This Journal Entry is based on a speech delivered at the conference on college composition and communication, annual convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Thursday, March 14, 2019, by Asao B Inoue, the presentation entitled How Do We Language SO People Stop Killing Each Other, Or What Do We Do About White Language Supremacy.
The speech started with an acknowledgement of the native Americans, I felt that this acknowledgment helped to properly contextualize the rest of her presentation. Her argument was, once again, that there is a problem with writing centers across the USA; that the strict adherence to SAE currently is, and has been, a tool used to perpetuate white supremacy and racial inequality since this country was founded, hence the native American acknowledgment.
She uses the idea of a metaphorical cage, and poetry evoking mental images of birds flapping their wings with all there might, bloodying them, in attempt to break free of said cage, to illustrate what it is like to be of another race in America and not be able to properly speak SAE. The argument goes on to say that a lack of fluency with SAE terminally effects one’s socio-economic mobility. This lack of socioeconomic freedom manifests in the form of higher incarceration rates and epistemic violence (the denial of the possession of knowledge by the “gatekeepers” of knowledge)
To dig deeper into what Epistemic violence is, its essentially the pattern where, if your “white” you had access to, education, capitol and other opportunity which other races did not, and as a result they gained certain characteristics that other races had not yet the opportunity to acquire, then those traits become what was required to gain respect in academia and then academia in turn selected for these traits to the detriment of other, potentially equally valuable traits.
Inoue admonished educators nationwide in my opinion, she taunts them into critically examining how their grading practices and language expectations reinforce systemic racism, good intentions or not.
The rest of this Journal entry is a personal note from me to John and my “White” Colleagues like Kennedi and others. I felt attacked and I’m not even white, so I’d just like to thank you for turning the other cheek and apologize that this is where we are as a country right now. That’s all.
References:
Inoue, A. B. (2019, March 14). How Do We Language SO People Stop Killing Each Other, Or What Do We Do About White Language Supremacy. Conference on College Composition and Communication Annual Convention, Pittsburgh, PA
In the article Disability in the Writing Center: A New Approach (That’s Not So New), Kerri Rinaldi critiques traditional approaches to accommodating disabled students in writing centers.
What stood out to me immediately was where it said “Though her institution offered extra time for these sessions and training on how to work with an ASL interpreter, there were still challenges, she said—like one student who wanted to write back and forth rather than use an interpreter. While it worked, the tutor found it to be cumbersome.” I can definitely see why, the tutor would find it cumbersome, but I don’t see why the student mentor wouldn’t do this. It seemed like common sense. In my opinion, writing mentors who are trying to get away from interacting with deaf students in this way seem sort of lazy, I think Kerry Rinaldi says this in a much nicer way when she says “I can’t shake the feeling that I’m not really being asked how to make sessions more accessible for deaf students. Instead, it feels like I’m being asked for some magic formula, some kernel of knowledge—if only a tutor could just locate this information, then the challenge of deafness could somehow be neutralized, and the sessions would be easier, more manageable—more normal.”
Kerri writes “The very foundation of writing center theory is based on the idea of a conversation between two equals—a space in which we construct knowledge together as peers, not instruct from a position of power.” Drawing from my communications classes, the imbalance of power, coupled with mis-managed conflict and aggression, equals bullying. Based on all the other readings I’ve seen so far I can definitely see how SAE and Accultrationist Rubrics can be co-opted into bullying a very specific cohort of individuals. I can also see why Writing mentors are important from this perspective and why a writing mentorship needs to be specifically that; “a conversation between two equals”, but the problem with that is that in the minds of most, “Disability” means “We are NOT Equal”.
Rinaldi notes that “Responses are framed as how to surmount the disability—rarely acknowledging disability as an identity with a culture and a shared history of struggle against oppression.” I find her approach to be dazzling with subterfuge. Rather than approach the elephant in the room; the hegemonic reliance on Danger-Beliefs regarding meritocracy, that exist only at the expense of the proletariat. In other words; if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, but if you don’t cook, then you don’t eat. Kerri’s argument is ultimately to, “let them cook”, however long it takes, just let them do what they need to do to get through their unique struggles.
Kerri goes on to say “no matter what we’ve read about that disability, we should defer to the student because that student’s preferences and self-knowledge are far more important than their disability.” This part I agree with, then she even states that “disclosure is not even a necessary part of the conversation when working with a student with a disability.” Which I vehemently disagree with. It is clear to me that this is a topic that Kerri is Ultra passionate about, this becomes truly evident where she writes “I replied to my classmate bluntly: What my disability is, quite frankly, is none of your business. My disability does not impact my knowledge of my self. I will tell you what I need, and you don’t need to know my disability so that you can make that decision for me. They were stunned—and doubtful—about this assertion. My classmates could not discard the idea that a diagnosis and disclosure must occur in order for my needs to be met. What they did not realize was that it is not my disability or diagnosis that determines my needs—it is me.” I agree that disclosure should be entirely at the discretion of the student, but only because of the larger power imbalances that come into play. Disabled students DO need more help, its just that in asking for this help, disabled students paint a target on their backs, especially when this extra help is required outside of what has been planned for or what one deems “is convenient” or not. The power imbalance created from even only occasionally requiring extra help will not disappear by advocating for equal treatment. Remember:
Power Imbalance + Mismanaged aggression + Mismanaged Conflict = Bullying.
The answer isn’t to pretend we are all equal, it’s to embrace the fact that we aren’t and compensate for that. This is exemplified where she says “Because most of all, what I want to happen in those moments when we find out that a tutee has a disability is that we say, “Okay, so how would you like to work together? What works best for you?””
References:
Rinaldi, K. (2015). Disability in the writing center: A new approach (that’s not so new). Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 13(1). Retrieved from Praxis Journal
Leave a Reply