Abstract:

This essay, a collaborative effort between Mr. Wallace Cleaves and Dr. Paul Beehler, briefly considers the history surrounding the American composition classroom in an effort to evaluate how previously successful practices of composition can inform instructors’ approaches regarding writing assignments and the successful integration, specifically, of canonical literature into a composition classroom. A discussion of modern theory as it relates to reading lists and composition assignments establishes a context from which a practical inclusion of canonical literature with an integration of twenty-first century technology can be implemented through a syllabus designed specifically for the composition classroom. The pedagogy under consideration was developed with the express purpose of integrating a host of works that span the landscape of English Literature while simultaneously addressing the current curricular requirements of a writing class. This approach utilized a number of audio visual and multi media presentations, a sample of which will be available for consideration at the conference. Ultimately, the course was constructed with a singular intent of making canonical texts accessible by creatively pairing them with modern interpretations found in film, in music, on the web and through other artifacts of contemporary culture.
Much of the paper delves into an analysis of the course which was, in fact, taught during the spring quarter of 2009. Students completed lengthy surveys upon the conclusion of the class. The questions, some of which are quantitative in nature, investigate sundry topics including the difficulty of the course, the difficulty of the writing assignments, and the difficulty of the reading assignments. For example, the first question, “How difficult was this course?,” offers participants a seven point scale. Of the 74 responses, the question generated a high response of 7 and a low response of 3. The median was a 5, and the mean was a 4.99. This question alone offers a wealth of information; for example, the response suggests that students were challenged but not overwhelmed. Some colleagues posed a rather blunt criticism: students would not, they argued, be able to engage such a rigorous course because of a lack of preparation. Considering the rigor and scope of the course, such a criticism seemed reasonable at the time; however, the student responses suggest otherwise. The course seems to have indeed been challenging but not beyond the reach of students; in other words, the responses suggest that we as professors may be underestimating our students to some extent.
Questions like this first query and accompanying narratives will be provided to explain some of the more important and surprising results.