Troy
Croom
English
895
Prof.
Jennifer Trainor
7
May 2015
When
Students Talk Back
BUILDING
STUDENT AGENCY THROUGH
DIALECTICAL
FEEDBACK
This
article examines opportunities of
developing
student agency through
dialectical
commentary.
Teaching
ESL in adult schools for a number of years taught me a great deal in
a practical sense about working with students, acknowledging them and
their ideas, and making time to help them whenever possible.
Returning to the university for graduate studies, by comparison, has
informed my thinking in largely theoretical, though sometimes
pragmatic ways as well, particularly in the area of written feedback.
Two recent experiences from my graduate work led me to write this
paper. First, I investigated the literature on teacher commentary;
this opened my eyes to a more facilitative method of written
feedback. Also, I had the opportunity to observe several professors
teaching in their classrooms, including a mentor teacher for whom I
was a teaching assistant for a full semester. Despite my years of
teaching experience, I found I had much to learn while observing
other teachers in action. Together, these two experiences -- the
feedback literature review and classroom observations -- made me look
at teacher response from a new perspective.
My
research helped me realize the great chasm between many teachers’
written commentary and the ideal presented by voices defending
facilitative response. (Sommers, 1982; Brannon & Knoblauch,
1982; Lynch & Klemans, 1978; Straub, 1996) Meanwhile, my
observations highlighted the significant difference in approaches
some teachers choose in connecting with their students. I found that
some take a real interest in helping students and making themselves
available, while others avoid personal interaction whenever possible.
The student-teacher interactions that were so intensely dialectic in
some cases, and nearly non-existent in others, offered examples of
relatively democratic classrooms, in the former, where student
expression can flourish, and rather authoritarian classrooms, in the
latter, where directive response can arise, effectively squelching
student agency. Teachers and writers have experimented in myriad
ways to expand agency. Such steps include offering students a choice
of text and writing assignments; building an ethnographic units
around student experience; self-assessment; and, of course,
advancements in facilitative feedback. Certainly, the movement
toward facilitative feedback is an excellent start, but is it enough?
We would do well, I believe, to take the current thinking further
still.
While
feedback studies tend to focus on teachers’ flaws and the need for
better feedback, they hardly discuss the greatest implications for
commentary --
to empower our students to develop personal agency.
For example, in her ground-breaking 1982 research, Sommers (1982)
says the purpose of effective response is to let students know if
their writing is comprehensible and, if not, how to correct it.
Going a bit deeper in her recent handbook for teacher commentary
(2013), she posits that feedback’s secondary functions are to
demonstrate the presence of a reader and to “help our students
become that questioning reader themselves.” (p. xi) While we
surely know that feedback tells students how well they’re doing
and, one would hope, that it teaches them to write for an audience,
still, Sommers’ final point -- helping
students becoming questioning readers
-- deserves amplification. Feedback can do more than help students
question what they read: with a more democratic approach, it can
actually help students develop agency.
If
this applies generally, it’s especially true when we give students
license to truly “talk back” -- commenting on teacher commentary
as well as the revision at hand. For some teachers, this could be a
radical move since, in many writing classrooms, teacher feedback is
not open for discussion. I feel avoiding such discussion is a missed
opportunity for developing students’ critical thinking -- learning
to see both their own work and their teacher’s suggestions through
what Rosenblatt (1988) calls “authorial reading.” (p. 9)
Rather, I suggest we encourage students to continue the dialectic of
debate, building upon the “back-and-forthness” of the classroom,
(Jackson & Wallin, 1996), boosting agency by “conversing”
with their papers (Salvatori, 1996) and, later, with their teacher
through office conference or email. Teachers who write feedback with
an open mind to student-teacher dialogues are engaging in what I call
dialectical
feedback.
The goal is not necessarily to welcome a cross-examination of
teachers, though this may occur, but to aid students in learning from
our experience how to read their papers more effectively and how,
with new liberty, to better question all that they encounter -- in
the words of Paolo Freire (as cited in Kern, 2014), to “read the
world.” I posit that this perspective can lead to student
empowerment and boost student agency. ( p. 36)
This
paper will offer thoughts on dialectical feedback through five moves.
First, I examine the scholarship on in my literature review. This
leads to an explication of student agency and how dialectic feedback
can help build it. I then discuss potential classroom challenges in
applying dialectical feedback, including a shift in the
student-teacher power dynamic. Next, I examine two effective models
that can help us move toward a new feedback approach. Finally, I
offer some thoughts on the praxis of dialectical feedback.
Giving
Voice to Feedback
First,
what do we mean when we speak of feedback? I take feedback to mean
written commentary, addressing form or content, with the goal of
motivating students and clarifying objectives to improve revisions.
The literature on feedback issues asks how teachers give feedback in
reference to the ideal and recommends steps to re-direct teachers who
seem to be missing the mark. For years, composition scholars have
been discussing the degree of control that a teacher ought to wield
when she lifts her red pen to respond. Studies have shown much
feedback is too directive or authoritative and students could better
be served by a more facilitative approach. (Lynch and Klemans, 1978;
Sommers, 1982; Brannon and Knoblauch, 1982; Straub, 1996) Also,
research has shown that much response is arbitrary, inconsistent,
contradictory (Sommers, 1982; Brannon and Knoblauch, 1982).
Ironically, writing instructors, so insistent that students write
with clarity, all too often leave vague, bewildering notes (Sommers,
1982; Lynch and Klemans,1978). Indeed, some actually misread student
texts, imposing their own readings, frustrating student writers
(Brannon and Knoblauch, 1982).
Even
more frequently, teachers tend to over-correct, addressing form and
content simultaneously, marking every error in sight, so that,
without clearly prioritized instructions, students may feel the need
to address all surface errors before the paper’s meaning can be
attended to. (Brannon and Knoblauch, 1982) Nancy Sommers notes that
many teachers trained in literature analysis are likely to address
student writings with the same scrutinizing eye. (1982) Similarly,
Brannon and Knoblauch (1982) find teachers tend to respond to papers
from “the vantage point of the Ideal Text,” (p. 159) with a
persona that’s paternalistic and controlling. They note that, by
appropriating student writing, teachers show students that the
teacher’s agenda is more important than their own. Rather than
usurp student work, these writers appeal to teachers to focus on what
the writer wants to say, with the assumption that the text reflects
the writer’s intention, recognizing that even inexperienced writers
possess a logic and purpose.
There
is no shortage of advice for teachers who appropriate student
writing. In Richard Straub’s “The Concept of Control,”
(Straub, 1996) he cites several ways teachers are called on to
re-imagine their role of teacher-as-reader. Jeffery Sommers, he
notes, wants teachers to be collaborators, not judges; Robert Probst
calls on teachers to abandon positions of hostile reader and
gatekeeper, “making pronouncements from on high.” Joseph Moxley
admonishes teachers to quit treating student writers as “army
privates following orders.” (p. 225)
Where
Sommers and associates’ initial findings focused on the
ineffectiveness of feedback, Straub’s study finds directive
commentary can be actually antithetical and hypocritical to the
modern Composition classroom designed to encourage democracy and
lively debate. Indeed, increasingly, students are urged to ask
questions, anticipate counter-points and generally learn in a
dialectical way in all areas save one. But when it comes to teacher
response, a student is presented little or no opportunity to discuss
the teacher’s critique and how it impacts the paper. More
conventional teachers may assume students will simply accept their
feedback without question, as if it were the objective “truth,”
but, as Berlin (1988) remarks, such an undemocratic perspective
reflects the “authoritarian classroom.” (p. 491) This can stymy
progress made in an otherwise open, dialectical course by dampening
student expression. By contrast, a student who feels her ideas are
honored in a dialectic might more likely buy in to the revisionary
process with a sense of agency. Ironically, then, it stands to
reason that even teachers who pride themselves on facilitative
feedback are missing a key opportunity to expand student agency if
they aren’t engaging in dialectical feedback.
If
this is so, it’s difficult to explain why there’s been little
discussion about committing to a real dialectic between teachers and
students. James Berlin speaks of a “dialectical collaboration”
between student and teacher where the two are equals. (1988) Kutz,
Groden and Zamel (1993)address the teacher-student relationship as
co-authors and co-researchers, each party attending to the other’s
ideas for the improvement of the writing. Others (Jackson and
Wallin, 2009; Crosswhite, 1996) illustrate how dialectic can promote
a student’s feeling of inclusion with the opportunity to ask
questions and raise objections. Perhaps the most influential words
on the dialectical classroom come from Paolo Freire, (as cited in
Bartholomae et al, 2014) who sees student and teacher as partners,
working together to share ideas and find answers. In this model, the
teacher presents material and, upon encountering student input,
re-considers her earlier views.
Yet,
even with this interest in dialectical pedagogy, there’s been no
scholarship directly addressing the opportunities that dialectical
feedback can offer. This paper will examine these opportunities. I
will explore re-creating, not only the teacher’s role, but the
teacher-student relationship at the feedback stage on compositions,
examining the benefits and challenges to building a dialectical
exchange toward improved student agency and compositional revision.
First, I will examine agency -- why it’s vital, how it’s created
generally and how dialectical feedback can help develop it
specifically. Then, I will offer some practical models to suggest
what dialectical feedback looks like in the Composition classroom.
In this way I hope to underscore the importance of re-imagining
teacher response through the rhetorical lens of dialectic.
The
Benefits of Agency
As
Composition teachers, we spend copious amounts of time trying to
encourage students to re-work their writing with the hope that they
will consider our comments in their writing, synthesizing new,
improved drafts. But what if they don’t use the comments? Perhaps
this suggests that they don’t understand or agree with them. Yet
another possibility is that students don’t feel adequately included
or validated in the feedback process and resent or reject commentary
out of hand. For some students, feedback can feel like a one-way
street since they may have no opportunity to discuss teacher
response. This lack of exchange leads to a dead end, a truncation of
communication, reaffirming the authoritative power imbalance in the
student-teacher relationship where the student has no choice but to
follow directives or disregard them. And what a disappointing
experience that can be, especially at the feedback stage: after
developing the insight and the nerve to offer arguments and
counter-arguments, when it comes to reading a teacher’s notes, in
most traditional classes, the student is utterly without recourse.
Arguably, this sabotages the pedagogical intent to build student
agency.
But
what, exactly, is student agency? As used in rhetoric, this term
derives from the philosophical understanding, defined by Merriam/
Webster, as the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of
exerting power. In the student-centered classroom, then, we want to
help students develop a sense of capacity, self-confidence and
independence from the teacher versus the passivity found in students
in an authoritative classroom. Of course, how a teacher does this is
a matter of some controversy. Some view agency as “an attribution
made by another agent, that is, by an entity to whom we are willing
to attribute agency...It is through this process that mutual
attribution agency (produces) the agent.” (C. Miller, 2011, p. 150)
In this perspective, the teacher is key in instilling the student
with a sense of agency, while others hold that agency comes by from
taking action and shouldering responsibility (M. Miller, 1984; C.
Cooper 2011). This explains why student-centered pedagogies put
choice and responsibility in the hands of the student.
To
my mind, agency emerges and impacts learning in this way: Choice
leads to Personal Interest, fostering Engagement, leading to Action,
then to Responsibility, which leads to Satisfaction and Agency,
re-energizing the whole circle of agency. For example, a student
picks a text she enjoys from a selection of options (Choice). She
finds that trusting her own predilections pays off because, the more
she interacts with this Choice, the more she enjoys it (Personal
Interest); the more she enjoys it, the deeper involved she becomes
(Engagement). As she applies this Choice to an challenging activity
(Action), she finds she’s invested herself in a voluntary way where
she commits to finalizing the project to the best of her ability
(Responsibility). This brings about a sense of achievement
(Satisfaction) that builds a sense of self-confidence, capacity and
independence (Agency), which fuels the desire to delve deeper still
into working and learning. According to this model, all our
pedagogies and all student activities come back to building agency.
If
this is true -- that agency fuels learning -- then agency ought to be
a chief goal for the Composition classroom. Ironically, however,
conventional feedback is antithetical to the dialectical spirit we,
as Composition teachers, are supposedly trying to stimulate in our
classes. While we give free rein to students to debate topics in
order to engender nimble minds for critical thinking, and to readily
envision each point’s counter-point; while we speak about the
importance of developing voice and agency through give-and-take with
the discourse community; when it comes to feedback, we too frequently
cut short the exchange, missing, I think, an important opportunity to
extend the dialectical lesson that augments student agency. Of
course, agency is only one quality among many that we might care to
engender in students. We also strive to help them write with a sense
of authority and voice, for instance. Still, it could be argued that
even building these qualities activities leads to building agency.
Ideally, we’re steering students toward empowerment and
independence, where their ever-growing confidence leads them to take
on greater challenges, expanding their capacity. Thus, if student
agency is a prime objective, we would do well to design it into
feedback methods.
If
the generally accepted understanding is that student agency comes
from increasing student involvement at every stage of the curriculum
(e.g., student choice of text and activity, self-assessment), we need
to include students in the feedback process as well. To create a
dialectical exchange, students need to know they’re being heard,
that they’re being validated as writers. A dialectical approach to
commentary -- removing the last bastion of hidden authoritarianism in
the student-teacher power paradigm -- promises to improve student
agency and student writing as well.
Dialectical
feedback, as I see it, is an extension of the democratic classroom,
where students are welcomed as equals, even while acknowledging, one
hopes, the depth and breadth of knowledge and insight that a teacher
can offer. Of course, the idea of student-teacher equality has
limits due to a teacher’s considerable training and commitment, as
well as her responsibilities for vision and leadership in the
classroom, earning her a unique degree of authority, but without
acting authoritative. When it comes to assessment, the teacher’s
final decision ought to be final, of course; a paper’s final grade
should not be open for endless debate, out of respect for
practicality and the teacher’s responsibilities. However, ideally,
before that point of finality, teacher opinions about a paper would
remain open for discussion. All of this has the goal, not to
empower students solely for some abstract cause, but specifically to
give them every opportunity possible to improve reading and writing
and, ultimately, to develop agency. As Nancy Sommers (1992) writes,
“It is in the thrill of the pull between someone else’s authority
and our own . . . that we must discover how to define ourselves.”
(p. 31)
Some
see the student-teacher relationship as the chief challenge to a
classroom dialectic. In my opinion, so far as creating an authentic
dialectical pedagogy, Paolo Freire’s democratic classroom is the
strongest model. As Freire (as cited in Bartholomae, Petrosky &
Waite, 2014) points out, in the traditional classroom, the teacher’s
function is to “‘fill’ the students with information,” as if
they were empty bank accounts, passively, helplessly in need of care.
(p. 219) Kern (2014) posits that students have learned to accommodate
authoritative teachers in passive ways, even if this behavior
prolongs structural inequities. What’s needed, Freire (2014)
opines, is a democratic classroom where teacher and student are
partners or “co-investigators.” (p. 222) Instructors with an
interest in research might take less issue with Freire’s model,
given that they are accustomed investigating their world and
themselves. On the other hand, this might present more conventional
teachers with a confusing new paradigm, especially if they assume
they already know how to run a classroom and that student-teacher
power dynamics are fixed in place. Of course, in the years since
Friere’s influential writings, many teacher’s minds have opened
and and many pedagogies have turned student-centered. Yet for our
purposes, these questions remain:
- How can we extend this concept of the democratic classroom to the stage of feedback on student writing?
- What are the benefits?
- What obstacles block the way?
The
Dialectical Classroom
First,
we need to check our attitudes as teachers. To what extent are we
prepared to commit to a democratic classroom? The manner that we
address students in feedback begins with our own persona on the first
day of class, as Nancy Sommers assets. (2013) Are we authoritative
or affable? Are we distant or approachable? How ready are we to
honor student questions (even “inappropriate” questions)?
Crosswhite (1996) offers that “Timeliness and seeing things from
the students’ points of view are everything in teaching written
reason.” (p. 130) In this way the teacher’s main objective is to
compassionately connect with her students, making herself available
when possible, and responding to student writing in a timely manner.
Next, whenever possible, we need to make choices that involve
students at every level of the curriculum. How do we confer choice
to students in the texts they read? In writing themes? These are
important ways to offer students choice and to build agency in the
democratic classroom.
In
regard to written response, we need to see student papers as
dialectical conversations with the opportunity to promote the
revision process, as opposed to treating working drafts as if they’re
the end product, where we deposit information and judgement like some
Freireian banker. By contrast, Nancy Sommers (2013) sees the
response process as an exchange with a student who begins by asking
implicitly, “‘How do I write a good college paper?’” (p. 2)
Indeed, before she even reads a single paper, Sommers (2013) asks
students to write about their writing in what she calls Dear Reader
letters. In this way she gets better acquainted with students,
asking questions that help her respond to their papers. A teacher,
Sommers notes, can help shape student response to Dear Reader letters
by supplying certain questions, for example:
- What are your paper’s strengths?
- What would you like me to respond to in particular?
- What would you change if you had two more days to write?
With
Dear Reader letters, Sommers notes, teachers can better curtail
feedback, making it less verbose or high-handed, less likely to “spew
a long list of points that need to be fixed, and more likely to
remember that end comments ought to be specific, not generic, and
written form one writer to another.” (p. 25)
In
a similar way, in The
Discovery of Competence,
Eleanor Kutz and colleagues(Kutz, Groden & Zamel, 1993) further
explore the student-teacher relationship and, with it, the process of
correspondence and feedback. Where Sommers implements Dear Reader
letters -- usually one per student per draft -- with a three-teacher
team, Kutz et al have the uptopian option of one teacher entirely
devoted to correspondence and written response while two other
teachers instruct in the classroom. In this way, teacher and student
have the time and freedom to exchange a virtually unlimited number of
letters or emails discussing students’ writing. In both the
correspondence models of Sommers and Kutz and associates, students’
ideas are honored and addressed in response, and they have the
opportunity to engage in address a real audience with a real purpose,
giving relevance to their learning. Of course, in the latter,
student and teacher have the chance to develop a familiarity, if not
intimacy, that promotes student questions and commentary, and they
have an ongoing opportunity to read and learn about correct usage of
grammar and syntax simply reading the text of someone they already
respect. In fact, according to Kutz et al, there’s little or need
for direct teaching in surface language since students tend to
acquire it through indirectly through correspondence.
If
Kutz and colleagues’ feedback comes closest to the Freireian ideal,
the question remains whether an open dialectical feedback is any
guarantee against teacher co-opting a student paper. In fact, at the
end of the day, a teacher is free to write whatever she cares to
write in commentary. Dialectical feedback may not offer an iron-clad
check-and-balance for preventing teachers from usurping student
papers, but it does present the next best thing: students voicing
their opinions in defense of their own writing, and this is probably
the best we can hope for. Moreover, for all the scholarship and fist
pounding to denounce directive feedback, short of developing a
dialectical commentary, no other theory or model, so far as I know,
comes closer to ensuring that teachers employ facilitative feedback.
In
giving students a chance to respond to teacher feedback, Kutz et al
have gone some distance to closing the student-teacher gap on
feedback since, before a draft is even complete, student and teacher
have likely exchanged numerous notes about the paper’s development.
However, the same could not be said for Nancy Sommers’ model.
While her Dear Reader letters help to increase student-teacher
understanding and rapport, her students have no established recourse
to teacher feedback, aside from, one presumes, the conventional
method of seeking out a teacher in office hours. Depending on the
teacher, this falls some distance from Freire’s (2014) ideal where
the teacher is frequently reconsidering her text and her stance
including, potentially, written response based on students’
reflections. Such a teacher, according to Freire, is “no longer
merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who himself is taught in dialogue
with the students.” (p. 22)
Given
Sommers’ feedback methods, Freire might not fully approve since, in
her approach, student-teacher dialogue is, by definition, limited,
especially compared to the fully dialectic response of Kutz et al.
On the other hand, it should be noted that, while she does not offer
open-ended correspondence with students, Sommers (2013) uses other
student-teacher writing vehicles to cover some of the same ground.
First, students are asked to write a one-page revision plan,
explaining what they gleaned from teacher comments and outlining
their courses of action. This provides students a meta-analysis of
teacher feedback and urges them to take responsibility for steps in
revision; at the same time, it provides a kind of “contract”
between student and teacher while ostensibly removing, or at least
reducing, the traditional top-down power dynamic.
Second,
Sommers asks her students to critique her feedback methods. Just as
the Dear Reader letter gives students a voice to direct teacher
feedback, the paper for student response to teacher feedback puts
agency in the hands of students while giving the teacher a clear idea
about how to be respond in a more efficient manner. If this falls
short of the Kutz and colleagues’ pedagogy of open-ended
correspondence, nonetheless, it informs teachers, empowers students
and brings students and teachers together.
The
feedback methods of both Sommers and Kutz et al offer giant leaps
forward toward opening lines of communication between students and
teachers, providing teachers invaluable information for re-evaluating
their methods of response, while extending the circle of agency
already developed in the classroom. In contrast to conventional
“banking model” teachers, it would stand to reason that
instructors borrowing concepts from Sommers or Kutz and associates
are approaching the goal of building agency through actively
listening to students in authentic dialectic.
Final
Thoughts
Given,
most classrooms don’t have the luxury Kutz and associates have,
where two teachers teach while another takes the feedback
responsibilities. Indeed, for a conventional teacher, even without
the various steps that Sommers employs to give students voice, the
paper load for the typical Composition teacher is often difficult to
manage. How, then, can a teacher hope to augment student agency at
the feedback level with a methodology that’s sustaining and not
debilitating? After all, building student agency is a noble notion,
but unless it can be done by practical means, it could be
counter-productive to long-term classroom management. Certainly
these are valid concerns and should not be underestimated.
The
good news is that the first step in moving toward a more dialectical
approach might be easier than it looks. Trading authoritative
feedback for facilitative, for starters, means commenting more
judiciously, more empathically, but also less,
quantitatively. As we learn to control the impulse to share every
pearl of insight, and to resist re-writing student papers (no
matter how badly they might demand it),
we leave the reins of power and creativity in their hands and, at the
same time, reduce the hours formerly committed to “fixing”
student papers.
Next,
perhaps the most sensible way to work toward a dialectical classroom
and toward dialectical feedback is to expand operations in a
step-wise manner, incorporating new methods piecemeal. One useful
step to inuring students and teachers to embrace the dialectical
model would be to explicate, whole class, student writing as
classroom text. By discussing student writing together (whether from
a current or past cohort, or from a textbook), students -- especially
student writers -- become accustomed to speaking their perspectives
and defending them, and teachers become accustomed to accepting
conflicting opinions or explaining their own thinking (while dialing
down the defensiveness, ideally). In this way, students get
increasingly comfortable with voicing their ideas and they get the
benefit of working with teachers in what Norgaard (as cited in Harris
et al.) calls a “shared inquiry.” (p. 232) This sort of
interchange with students might make some teachers bristle at first.
But if we honestly want our students to write authentic papers, they
need to be free to ask authentic questions, and present authentic
arguments, which may, occasionally, conflict with our own, or other
students’, perspectives. At times, this can put us, as teachers,
in an uncomfortable position. As Norgaard explains:
The
prospect of exploring our own minds in public can unnerve even the
most hardened classroom veteran. It’s easy to feel that we can’t
afford to get it wrong, that we’re likely to make a mistake, or
that we’re sure to come up against some difficulty we can’t
immediately resolve. The worst thing we can do is fear these
possibilities. If fear prevents the flowering of the mind, students
will take their cue from us and fear taking the intellectual risks
we tell them are so educational. (p. 242)
In
order to become comfortable with students talking back to teacher
commentary, it can
benefit
teacher and student to work together sharing opinions on a more
frequent basis such
that both parties accept the notion of “shared inquiry.”
Since
some students may be shy or otherwise reluctant to comment on teacher
commentary, the next step toward dialectical feedback might be to
encourage students to read teacher feedback critically, with the
intention of applying it in revised drafts, and to ask questions in
office hours, conference or emails, as time permits. Of course, if a
teacher isn’t already conferencing with students, this might be an
excellent way to move toward dialectical feedback. If students tend
to avoid asking questions even after being encouraged to do so, this
could indicate that a teacher might benefit from self-assessment.
The
Composition teacher has been compared to the man in the circus,
trying to keep a dozen spinning plates twirling while playing “Dixie”
on kazoo. With all that’s expected of a teacher, it’s easy to
become overwhelmed to the point where survival mode is seen as the
optimum and projecting an approachable persona seems an impossible
luxury. Yet this is essential if students are to be comfortable
voicing questions, whether in the classroom or in a discussion of
teacher commentary. Possibly the most empowering means for a teacher
to take on dialectical feedback is to return to the opening of this
paper -- focusing not on our flaws, but on the vast opportunities
that await us and our students as we open our doors to listen.
References
(Sept),
477-94.
Brannon,
L. and Knoblauch, C. H. (1982) On Students’ rights to their own
texts: a
157-66.
Madison WI: U of Wisconsin Press.
Freire,
P. (2001). The adult literacy process as action for freedom. In
Beck, S. & Nabors-
Olah, L. (Eds.) Perspectives on language and literacy: Beyond the here and now.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. 335-351.
Olah, L. (Eds.) Perspectives on language and literacy: Beyond the here and now.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. 335-351.
Freire, P. (2014) The banking concept of education. In Bartholomae, D., Petrosky, A. &
Martin’s. 216-226.
Jackson,
B. and Wallin, J. (2009) Rediscovering the ‘back-and-forthness’
of rhetoric in
Kern,
R. (2014). Literacy
and language leaning.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kerschbaum, S. (2014) On rhetorical agency and disclosing disability in academic writing.
Rhetoric review. 33 (1), 55-71.
Kutz, E, Groden, S & Zamel,V. (1993) The Discovery of Competence. Portsmouth NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Communication. 33 (2) (May), 148-56.
Utah
State University Press. 229-242.
Rugut,
E., Osman, A. (2013) Reflections on Paolo Freire and classroom
relevance.
93-95.
Salvatori,
M. (1996) Conversations with texts: reading in the teaching of
composition.
College English, 58 (4) (April) 440-454.
(1)
(Feb), 23-31.
Straub,
R. ( 1996) The concept of control in teacher response: defining the
varieties of
2), 223-48.
Treglia,
M. O. (2008) Feedback on feedback: exploring student responses to
teachers’
No comments:
Post a Comment