I find some comfort in Convino’s discussion of rhetorical pedagogy, primarily because this is the pedagogy I was exposed to in my graduate program. I’m now assuming this is why I have such an affinity for objectivism and prescriptive instruction in my technology writing classes. I’m developing a better appreciation for the alternatives, but I am now more comfortable in my teaching skin.
Convino claims that, “… rhetorical pedagogy consists in encouraging writing that is not restricted to self-expression or the acontextual generation of syntactic structures or the formulaic obedience to rules, but instead keep in view the skills and contingencies that attend a variety of situations and circumstances” (37). This, it seems, is exactly why Tech Comm would take up rhetorical pedagogy as a valid instructional lens and approach.
To generalize as I often do, the need for self-expression (or a sense of writer presence) is not often found in technical communication activities and information products. I’m not surprised then to see that rhetorical pedagogy was taken up in reaction to expressivism at a time (the 1970s-1980s) when Tech Comm was maturing as a discipline separate from English and Composition. As Convino notes, rhetorical pedagogy was a response to what some saw as self-expressive writing’s constraint upon the range of discourses available to student writers.
I also appreciate and identify with modern rhetorical pedagogy as an effort to restore the 5 cannons – invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery – but most importantly, invention (which had been lost in current-traditional objectivity). I note this appreciation having long dismissed invention in the technical writing process as something external and arbitrary to the writer. Modern rhetorical pedagogy exposes Tech Comm instruction to classical rhetoric by confronting “post-modern theory that calls into question the possibility of stabilizing a set of values without enacting cultural oppression” (46) Tech Comm instruction thrives on stability and structure. Oppression (cultural or otherwise) that may occur as a result of those structures can and has occurred. But teaching technical communication as a post-modern activity obliterates any sense of structure and stability, returning the writing activity to some more akin to self-expressive free writing.
The historical trajectory from current-traditionalism is reassuring, as it clarifies Tech Comm’s progress narrative as I understand it. “… we have returned from the current-traditional compression of rhetoric to an expansive sense of its scope and a more fully inclusive appreciation for the range of backgrounds, needs, and desires that inform the teaching of reading and writing” (49).
No comments:
Post a Comment