Anthony F.

Borrero
17725 Halton Park Drive, Apt. 2C Charlotte, NC 28262 aborrero@uncc.edu 910-286-6827 Statement of Teaching Philosophy In the article, Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class, theorist James Berlin posed a connection between theory and praxis by reminding us that every pedagogy is imbricated in ideology. But while Berlin asserted the importance of acknowledging the existence of theory and ideology in praxis, he attempts to push his point even further by challenging the reader to explore the foundation of their ideologies, or to use his words, our assumptions of what is real, what is good, what is possible, and how power ought to be distributed in composition and writing (492). Within this statement of teaching philosophy, I not only hope to acknowledge the ideologies that inform my conceptual perspective, but also how my theoretical orientation is manifested within my praxis, since as authors like Berlin and James Zebroski remind us, theory and praxis are indeed answerable to one another (Zebroski 10). As stated in the introduction of my application letter, the concept which is impacting my current way of teaching most significantly is that of positionality, or more specifically, the connection between the writer, the act of writing, and how language and constraints can be negotiated in order to identify or alter ones discursive, social, political, or cultural position. This notion of positionality is predicated on the idea that ones values and beliefs are constantly oscillating between the acts of construction and deconstruction. In fact, post-structural, social theorists such as Derrida and Foucault have frequently noted that in order to create new values, we must confront, clarify, and challenge former values. Within my teaching, I want to position writing as an act that allows the writer to see what composition theorists such as Stenberg and Whealy call a revisionary possibility for students and their thinking (684). Accordingly, I want my students understand that the act of writing involves the exploration of liminal positions, or what Min-Zhan Lu calls their actual, imagined, and possible self and life (28). While the ideas of revising ones thinking and imagining past, current, and future selves is an inherent part of most rhetorical actions, through foregrounding these ideas in my courses, I hope to build my students understanding of how they can use their critical positions to develop agency and authority in their writing. Beyond looking at theory as a standalone construct, we must also look at the discussions and practices that help manifest this theory within the reality of our classrooms. Over time, I have found that my assignments, discussions, and classroom culture have foregrounded questions and ideologies exploring the social and cultural implications of writing, or what scholars such as Richard Fulkerson refer to as critical/cultural studies (655). Within these discussions, some of the questions and points I raise for my students include the ways that writing can negotiate the intersectionality of the individual and society; how overlapping communities of praxis are constantly challenging our views of socio-political space; the role that expressivist and constructivist forms of writing play in producing knowledge; as well as how mediums such as technology, genre, language, and other constructs influence the writer and the act of writing. Although these questions can be negotiated in a multitude of ways, in my current teaching practices, I am exploring how these questions are represented within the concepts of literacy and inquiry.

To teach writing is to acknowledge the plurality of values informing how we write and what we value about writing, or to use the words of Zebroski, to acknowledge that we as humans are a gathering place for a host of rhetorical universes (5). Within my courses, I use the study of cross-cultural literacy practices as a means of exploring these universes, and accordingly, the structure of my courses are designed to take the writer from a centered or personal understanding of literacy, to a decentered or socially situated understanding of literacy and writing. Put another way, the course is designed to allow writers to recognize how the values and practices which impact our views of rhetoric and writing are, as Zebroski says, simultaneously social and individual (5). These ideologies are reflected particularly in my Multi-Modal Literacy Narrative Project, as well as in my Literacy Ethnography Project. Within the Multi-Modal Literacy Narrative Project, students explore their literacy histories through a series of focused, small-stakes writing assignments, culminating with the creation of a new, more developed literacy narrative that employs a genre of their choosing. In this project, I use genre, not only as a method of articulation, but more importantly, as a generative tool that allows students to explore various ways of thinking, and to understand how genre embodies what Deborah Dean describes as ways of being and acting in the world (7). For example, in one project composed for my course, a male student who happened to be an Engineering major chose to articulate his literacy history through composing an instrumental songa genre which he said illuminated his understanding of both writing and engineering through foregrounding the tension between creativity and structure. Within his narrative explication, the student stated that he used conventions like jazz melodies and organic instrumentation to explore his cultural values and heritage, while more synthetic tones were used to explore more progressive ideas of literacy, such as those learned in school. In contrast to the literacy narratives expressivist exploration, the literacy ethnography project completed in the second half of the semester poses a more constructivist view of literacy by allowing students to move past their own socially-situated literacy practices as they examine those of communities they are not part of. Gordon Wells, in particular, notes that by attempting to make sense with and for others, [] we make sense for ourselves (6). With this purpose in mind, the tiering of these projects in my classroom allows students to reconcile their own literacy practices with those of the greater community, and move from a personally situated understanding of writing to a more cosmopolitan view of writing and literacy. While the primary purpose of my courses centering on literacy is to identify the voices which we are writing from, or what some would call our writerly identities, my courses centered on inquiry revolve around the voices we are writing to, or how we may situate ourselves to respond to various contexts, discourses, and audiences. When we examine the social and cultural purpose of the modern university, we see that the focus is primarily placed on the pursuit of knowledge, or as Wells puts it, the process of people working together to solve problems that arise in the course of shared activity (2). To respond to these conditions, I use the study of inquiry as a means of moving students towards what scholars such as Judy Kirscht, Rhonda Levine, and John Reiff refer to as dialectic thinking, or the notion that knowledge can only be understood by examining the contexts, discourses, and perspectives that gave rise to it (374). Additionally, my assignments and discussions place heavy emphasis on fostering a culture of curiosity, and using writing as a means to explore where that curiosity can take the writer and the process that the writer uses to navigate various discourses. An example of how my assignments work towards these goals can be seen in my Intertextual Annotated Bibliography

assignment, as well as the inquiry project I have titled the Context, Audience, Purpose, or C.A.P. Project. Within the Intertextual Annotated Bibliography, students begin by asking a question about a topic of their choosing, such as How do we treat mental illness? or How is digital culture changing the way we view/form relationships? Upon initiating their inquiry, students use a cloud-based presentation program called Prezi to map how their research responds to this question, the connections between sources, and most importantly, how the responses to this question bring up new questions, issues, and discussions. Unlike more algorithmically driven writing assignments, such as problem-solution essays, the Intertextual Annotated Bibliography places value on a more heuristically oriented praxis, and the discovery of further questions rather than finite answers. Because scholars like Kirscht, Levine, and Reiff have warned us that refusing to venture beyond the boundaries of our assumptions [can lead us to] maintain a sense of security about our purpose, value, and approach to writing, my course is meant emphatically to push us beyond the boundaries of our assumptions, which more often than not, limit our rhetorical creativity and effectiveness (373). The CAP Project in the second half of the semester asks students to move past simply observing connections between and within others texts, and to develop their own direct responses to a specific contextual scenario that stemmed from their earlier research. Because the pushing of boundaries is necessary for true curiosity, students choose how they will respond to the contextual scenario they have chosen, whether it be in a genre such a letter, article, speech, blog, or other alphabetic genre appropriate to their purpose. A example of a work-in-progress from my current course is a speech that a student is writing in response to the Presidents Obama and Clintons speeches on the Affordable Healthcare Act. Unlike the speeches that have been given in the past, this students speech targets younger generations those that have been largely excluded from the debates on this subject. Due to this unconventional audience, the writer is finding that she needs to be creative in the methods she uses to appeal to this audience, as well as the discussion points she employs within the speech. When completed, the writers goal is to help her audience consider that the issues of the present have long-term repercussions that will impact these youths in the future, and accordingly, that her audience needs to develop a foresight on how they view and engage the political sphere. As demonstrated by this example, the context, audience, and purpose work in tandem to push the writers assumptions about how rhetorical strategies may be used in favor of traditional modesbased approaches. These sentiments also mirror the goal of the course as a whole, which is to illuminate the notion that writing functions in a continuum of interdependent responses and that inquiry serves as the means for entering and engaging these discourses. Although the bulk of this philosophy is focused on how I attempt to position my students, I have yet to negotiate my own position within my class, and how my praxis, interactions, and demeanor serve to both cultivate and perpetuate a productive writing culture. In the realm of socio-spatial theory, scholars such as Henri Lefebvre and Jrgen Habermas have often agreed upon the fact that (social) space is a (social) product (Lefebvre 26). In addition to this, post modern composition theorists such as Kristie Fleckenstein, Clay Spinuzzi, Rebecca Rickly and Carole Clark Papper have posed ecologically oriented, or dialogic models of community and culture that stress the importance of accounting for interdependence, diversity, and the need for feedback, while still remaining sensitive to individual perspectives (Fleckenstein, et. al). If we

view culture as nothing more than an extension of discourse, then the beginnings for shaping culture ask us to examine the rhetorics we use within that community, and in my classes, this is no exception. For this reason, much of my effort toward developing classroom culture begins with establishing a common rhetoric and language with which to discuss writing and our values of writing. In order to establish this common rhetoric, I not only model the usage of these terms, but I also help my students conduct a dialogic inquiry into the values this lexis has in our classroom. The cultivation of this language provides the means for students to talk about their writing, and accordingly, positions them so that they can evaluate their writing. This notion of including students in the assessment process is critical to the disruption of traditional IRE (Initiate-Respond-Evaluate) patterns of interaction, in which the teacher is situated as the sole authority over the students work. Aside from foregrounding the students role in the evaluation of their work, I am also cognizant of my own role in response, as I strive to engage and experiment with multiple modes of response, which have ranged from more technologicallyoriented methods such as Voicethread and Jing, to more practical forms of response, such as written narrative feedback and face-to-face conferencing. Although many of these actions are subtle gestures for establishing culture and community, I have found that these actions help to position me as a guide and facilitator and help stress the dialogic nature of our classroom and composition as a whole. In the opening of this essay, I evoked the words of James Berlin, and asserted the necessity of assessing our assumptions of what is real, what is good, [and] what is possible in our classroom (492). As I conclude my statement of philosophy, I feel compelled to address these points more directly. For me, what is real about writing and writing instruction is the belief that writing is socially situated, and that students must take authority over ideologies and language in order to negotiate their position in their community. As for whats good, I believe that good writing requires a sense of adventure and explorationthe willingness to let both inquiry and the process for composition wander where it must for the sake of discovery and growth. Accordingly, as an instructor, I also believe that good instruction should allow students to explore these possibilities while instilling confidence, strengthening the students direction, and facilitating the development of skills. Finally, with respect to whats possible, I believe that this notion has yet to be decided, as the direction of discourse about rhetoric and composition continues to develop with the changing face of our society and times. As I move forward, I not only intend to change with the discourse, but also bring my students into that change by emphasizing the social nature of composition, inquiry-based learning, multi-modality, and rhetorical strategies. While my current work has proven that I can accomplish this goal, my potential, much like that of my students, will only improve as I continue to expand my understanding of the field and allow my praxis to embody my evolving point of view.

Works Cited Berlin, James. "Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class." College English 50 (1988): 477-94. Dean, Deborah. Genre Theory: Teaching, Writing, and Being. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2008. Print. Fleckenstein, Kristie and Clay Spinuzzi, Rebecca Rickly, and Carole Clark Papper. "The Importance of Harmony: An Ecological Metaphor for Writing Research." College Composition and Communication 60 (2008): 388-419. Fulkerson, Richard. "Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century." CCC 56.4 (2005): 654-87. Kirscht, Judy, Rhonda Levine, and John Reiff. Evolving Paradigms: WAC and the Rhetoric of Inquiry. CCC. 45.3 (1994): 369-80. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Lu, Min-Zhan. An Essay on the Work of Composition: Composing English against the Order of Fast Capitalism. College Composition and Communication. 56.1 (Sept. 2004): 16-50. Stenberg, Shari J., and Darby Arant Whealy. Chaos is the Poetry: From Outcomes to Inquiry in Service-Learning Pedagogy. CCC 60.4 (June 2009): 683-706. Wells, Gordon. Dialogic Inquiry in Education: Building on the Legacy of Vygotsky. Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research. Ed. C.D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 51-85. Zebroski, James. Composing Theory: How Theory Can (and Cant) Help the Writing Teacher. Thinking Through Theory: Vygotskian Perspectives on Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, N.H.: Boynton Cook, 1994.