 |
|
 |
 |
 Thomas J. Kinney
1652 Wapello Dr Mt Pleasant, IA 52641 (319) 385-2603 tkinney@email.arizona.edu http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tkinney
Before I explain how I teach, I want to begin by defining what precisely it is that I teach. Although I can also teach courses in literature and speech, the courses I teach most often are in rhetoric and composition. Yet, rhetoric and composition are heavily contested terms, both in the English department and the humanities. The critique of essentialism aside, we in higher education should always submit provisional definitions of what we teach in order to ground our teaching philosophies and the individual courses we teach. Rhetoric is neither an ability to invent arguments, as Aristotle defines it, nor the arguments themselves (either in terms of persuasion, eloquence, or figures and tropes), as Cicero and many others define it. Instead, rhetoric is the persuasive function of language and other semiotic systems, such as music, painting, photography, film, architecture, objects, clothing, and even gestures and body language. This function pervades all such systems to some degree, which is partly responsible for the commonplace that everything is rhetoric. What is frequently identified as rhetoric, then, is a text—oral, written, or visual—in which this persuasive function is the primary function. But all texts have this function; all texts are rhetorical. Therefore, what I teach is neither a skill (what Plato calls a knack) nor an archaic genre but rather a fundamental element of human communication. In a similar vein, writing is neither a "basic" skill nor a simple tool but rather a social practice in which we construct knowledge by inscribing words on a surface, typically through the recursive processes of invention, arrangement, and style. Although writing is often regarded solely as the transparent means through which knowledge is communicated, it is also the multifaceted means through which such knowledge is constituted. Writing is thus not a foundation for other forms of knowledge; it is an element of all such forms. In this sense, teaching writing (as if it could be taught in a semester or a year) is impossible, for writing is a life-long practice. Therefore, I do not simply teach writing; I teach students to make themselves into writers. Though important, definitions are mutable and have to be understood within the context in which they are being used. In other words, I do not simply teach rhetoric and writing; I teach rhetoric and writing to students. For this reason, how I define these terms ultimately depends on the course, the course materials, the students, and other such contexts as class size and current events. Why and how I teach are just as important as what I teach. Given the current climate of the humanities, why I teach rhetoric and writing is not a trivial concern. Put simply, I teach them because I believe that an understanding of rhetoric and writing is essential to the academic community, political activism, democratic governance, and ultimately social change. While rhetoric is often used hegemonically by those in power, it is used by others to challenge that power as well. Teaching rhetoric and writing is thus a means to promote analysis, argument, critical thinking, and reflection—all of which are necessary in order to make a more just and sustainable world. In order to describe how I teach, let me begin by saying that teaching is not the simple transmission of knowledge (i.e. Paolo Freire's banking model of education) but also the creation of environments in which learning takes place. As such, I try to create environments in which students engage course materials based on various topics and issues. Rather than always organize my courses in terms of chronology, as is often the case, I often organize mine in terms of issues—contested topics for which there is no definitive answer. Students are usually more engaged with course materials when they deal with issues in the texts rather than the texts themselves. Also, I believe it is best to vary the ways in which one delivers material to students (oral, written, and visual—even auditory). Typically, I introduce new materials with lecture, hold class discussion and/or small group discussion, and either begin and/or end with a writing exercise. What I try to do is to get students to see the assumptions, values, and beliefs operating in texts and understand how those assumptions, values, and beliefs make certain things in the world possible and other things impossible. I try to get them to think critically about issues and how those very issues affect us today. Ultimately, I want them to reflect on the assumptions, values, and beliefs they use themselves. Regardless of the course, I always stress writing, and I also stress research whenever I can. In order to teach writing and research, I have developed a series of handouts on invention, style, and arrangement. I teach students how to develop a search strategy and how to use various forms of research (databases, card catalogs, bibliographies, reference materials). I encourage students to use the full resources of the library, and I teach them strategies such as taking notes, keeping journals, summarizing and annotating texts, and freewriting. In addition, I highly value student conferences, both individual and group. Responding to and assessing writing is perhaps the most challenging aspect of teaching. When I respond to writing, I try not to write a lot of marginal comments (as it is too easy to overload students with comments), especially on first drafts. Instead, unless there are glaring problems, I write comments at the end. I ask questions, raise issues, and discuss problems. I look for ways in which the student can revise. Ultimately, I try to find something the student did well so he or she can expand on it to create an effective essay. Revision, I often tell students, is where writing begins. Teaching is inevitably a social and political practice, as every decision I make is a political decision. Though higher education is not a panacea, I believe that it can be a force for social change. Hence, I am committed politically, both to improving my students but also to the world outside the classroom door. In terms of my teaching, my research, and my professional identity, I strive to, as Michel Foucault once wrote, “give new impetus, as far and as wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.” Finally, I should note that my teaching philosophy is always subject to revision. I believe that in order to survive as a teacher and professional, one must be able to adapt to change—different subjects, different texts, different interpretations, different pedagogical styles, and different students. Those who do not change inevitably become grayer versions of themselves. Therefore, being reflective about oneself and one’s teaching is vital to being a good teacher and human being. [ top ] My primary teaching interests are rhetoric and composition, including the history of rhetoric, rhetorical theory, rhetorical criticism, and composition theory. More specifically, I am interested in political theories of rhetoric and composition like epistemic rhetoric, ideological criticism, critical rhetoric, and social-epistemic rhetoric. I am also interested in material, spatial, and visual rhetoric. Finally, I am interested in comparative rhetoric, especially Latin American rhetoric and its relationship to rhetoric in the United States and Canada. My secondary teaching interests are literary and cultural theory, especially Marxism, critical theory, and cultural studies. In addition to literary and cultural theory, I am interested in American literature and autobiography. [ top ] Typically, I have taught two to four courses per semester, though I have often received course releases for administrative work. Over the past five years, I have taught the following courses:
In Appendix 1, I have included (in reverse chronological order) the syllabi from the last five courses I have taught, and in Appendix 2, I have included sample assignments, exercises, and handouts that I used in these courses. [ top ] At the College of Staten Island and the University of Arizona, I received superior or satisfactory ratings from my supervisors in every semester of teaching (see Appendix 3). While most of their comments are positive, in particular the organization of my courses, they have noted areas for improvement, such as building rapport with students and generating class discussion. Over the past two years, I have concentrated on making changes in these areas. [ top ] Students have always evaluated my teaching favorably (see Appendix 4). At the University of Arizona, which requires student evaluations for every course, I received above average to exceptional marks all around, and my overall teaching effectiveness was rated as "almost always effective" to "usually effective" (4.2 average on a scale of 1-5). Compared to other courses in the department, my teaching effectiveness ranked consistently at or above the mean. I also received high marks on treating students with respect (4.8 average on a scale of 1-5). Written comments on my teaching have been positive as well, though they have, more often than the overall statistics, been more of a source of growth for me as a teacher (see Appendix 5). While I often receive many supportive comments, I also receive constructive criticism. For example, students often express that my courses require extensive background knowledge in such things as ancient history or Western philosophy. For this reason, I have developed lectures and visual aids that help to contextualize my courses. [ top ] I believe teachers should not only teach but also be engaged in the academic service that supports such teaching. In the Writing Program at the University of Arizona, I have held such administrative positions as Composition Coordinator, Composition Placement Advisor, and Instructional Support Consultant. When I worked as Composition Coordinator, I organized and ran late registration, transfer orientations, and new student orientations; discussed issues with and evaluated credit for transfer students; updated a database of equivalent writing courses across the country; read and evaluated transfer student portfolios and CLEP exams; responded to grade appeals; and updated the composition coordinator manual. As Composition Placement Advisor, I worked with other advisors to organize and run placement exams and advising sessions, read and evaluate placement exams and appeals, and discuss placement issues with students. When I was Instructional Support Consultant, I worked with other consultants to develop teaching resources for new and experienced instructors. These resources are collected on the Writing Instructors Resource (WIRe) page of the Writing Program website. I have also been a member of several university, college, department, and program committees, the following of which are directly concerned with teaching: the Faculty Senate, the Graduate Council, the University-Wide General Education Council, the English Department Faculty committee, and the Difference and Inequality Subcommittee in the Writing Program. With other graduate students, I have led the Difference and Inequality teaching workshops at the University of Arizona, and I have evaluated the Student Guide Essay Contest, the Arizona Board of Regents Portfolio Initiative, the Upper Division Writing Proficiency Exam, the Freshman Portfolio Project, and the Freshman Placement Exam at the University of Arizona and the Writing Proficiency Exam at the University of Houston. [ top ]
|
Copyright © 2002-2007 Thomas J. Kinney. All
rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
