Returning to Sirc

Returning to complete a more responsible read, particularly the “Arcades Project” assignment portion of his writing in Writing New Media, leaves me wanting to retract a number of the impassioned comments I made in Thursday’s class in reference to Sirc. Though now thinking myself mistaken to believe his coursework framed more as “encouragement” than as “instruction,” I am left wondering to what degree the innovation of this classroom exercise escapes the gravity of codification Marc as captures in his class notes for us here.

Though I recognize an “urban walkabout” in the topic of rap/hip hop and note the reach of sources accessed/recognized/legitimized that might not otherwise receive validation, the work itself seems pointedly anchored in what might be considered very traditional requirements. Note that a formal proposal is required five weeks before the final work is due (144); that the project as a whole is “designed to culminate in a research paper” – not project (142); that instructors are advised to incorporate their “best practices for introducing solid academic research writing,” which should include instruction on the research question, hypothesis, evaluating sources, paraphrase, summary, and other pertinent topics (143); and, that as the due date approaches, the focus of instruction turns “to show in detail the movement from notes to more specifically-styled formal prose” (144). Any student I’ve taught would consider this a difficult class before I mentioned the two pages of required weekly record of notes, so I ask myself if the topic and the significant investment of the instructor can make the difference that would have students lining up for a year just to get into his class.

Sirc plainly declares his dismissal of any responsibility to teach students to process the “serious writing” of the academy - a responsibility with which Bartholomae would charge the composition instructor (143), instead putting emphasis on the preservation and integrity of voice and informed awareness: “I don’t want student voices to be changed, re-shaped, or made over; rather I focus on helping students with a better sense of awareness and language, voice and content, and an appreciation of information” (146), work indicative of a scholar.

In the end I see less of a binary than I do of a blending of what we referred to in class as the codified space and the innovative space, a blending most carried by the innovation of the choice of topic honored in the classroom. Multi-directional discourse is valued while student voice is given place on par with academic discourse, and the subjective stance of the writer invokes an environment conducive of shared and/or sampled texts – the archive, the curator, the collected record. Yet, while these forms invite an air of innovation, the work itself seems solidly anchored in standardized practices which progress linearly, are empirically anchored, and in the end value paper over project – a move that, frankly, confused me inasmuch as it seemed out of character for Sirc as I recall his work from previous readings.

With thoughts toward Jeremy's post, the problem I have here is less that something worth protecting in the university classroom could be lost: I don’t think Sirc is putting the core work of writing at risk here, certainly not with the Arcades Project, but I do think significant assumptions are being made with regard to the real and difficult work of teaching research. A seasoned scholar may have the command of skills to engage tantalizing topics while remaining consistent and well-applied in research disciplines, but the value of those disciplines are difficult to realize in practice for freshman writers and even more difficult to teach as each a distinctly contributive element to the work of discovery in a universe of information, especially when the topic studied carries hefty street knowledge and voice that can legitimately “trump” the table. I’m drawn to the “romance” of a seductive topic and the promise of popularity that has students lining up to be in my class, but my imagination stalls at the thought of actually teaching the skills Sirc seems to put in place as a “given.” THAT’s the part I don’t get. How do you stay “cool” and still teach the question-hypothesis skills, source evaluation skills, notation skills, stylistic concerns, forms of documentation, etc. that are being asked of the students as they progress through a work of this kind? Is a "really cool topic" powerful enough to charm students into wanting to do this kind of academic scholarship? Is there enough time in a semester to teach these skills to those who may be meeting them for the first time?

One last thought, Marc, as it relates to the notes you’ve recorded for us: I might suggest that “standardized” approaches to composition are less “process oriented” than they are “outcome oriented,” but I would agree that your language for the innovative side of this binary is well addressed as “post-process orientation” – again, a space I’m not sure Sirc achieves with his Arcades Project. I think you make a great point in noting "ownership" as an aspect of writing that can vary with perspective, a point I have probably taught to without noticing. As to evidence, it seems to me that claims can be made from all camps on the "empirical" nature of evidence, a fact that may only mean the word is being recognized for its slippery nature, but I think your contrast of quantified arguments on the one hand with arguments that acknowledge the situatedness of any claim on the other is a strong observation, one I see as definitive of the contrast between the two positions.