In our discussion last class we all noted our desire to use the new paradigm and how our efforts sometimes fall short. As many stated in their pre-class posts, we need a model in order to leave the old paradigm behind.
Hairston notes that part of the reason this paradigm shift is slow (and therefore slow in providing us models) is because of the attitude towards freshman writing courses. Many view writing as a service or a skill. Such a view “ignores that importance of writing as a basic method of learning, taking away any incentive for the writing teacher to grow professionally. People who teach skills and provide services are traditionally less respected and rewarded than those who teach theory, and hiring hordes of adjuncts and temporary instructors and assigning them to compositions courses reinforces this value system. Consequently there is no external pressure to find a better way to teach writing.” Hiring these particular kinds of instructors only further fuels the idea that their jobs/courses are less respected and since these positions don’t receive respect, they’ll continue to be filled by non-theorists. Can we break this cycle? Such a task seems difficult as more and more programs place graduate students in the classroom as instructors.
However, Hairston remains optimistic, identifying a handful of promising signs that change is occurring. One of which relates to the classes we have to take: “graduate assistants who are in traditional literary programs rather than rhetoric programs are getting their in-service training from the rhetoric and composition specialists in their departments.” He concludes that due to this kind of training, GTAs will most likely pick up and use the new paradigm. This made me think back to our discussion of IORs. Ultimately, GTAs would benefit from having an IOR who teaches first year composition courses (I have trouble understanding why this isn’t the case for the program at FAU). So maybe things are changing, but more can be done to offer instructors the tools and models needed to follow the new paradigm. Which brings me to my final thought: If our current system were to change (as we discussed in class Friday), wouldn’t we be moving farther away from the progress Hairston envisions?