I donâ€™t look forward to it, but the week of the 4th of July strikes high summer – the turning point of summer towards autumn. The green starts to fade, the wildflowers start to seed, and I have to get my fall book orders in and start some serious work on syllabi.
The bookstore asks faculty to get book orders for fall in to them by April – five months early. Lately, the request has become a demand as they try to set deadlines for book orders. If I know the course is ready, I try to get an order in during spring. But for upper-division clases, and classes that need revision, I use the first month of summer to re-think the books. If a book didnâ€™t work in the last offering, I want to change it – and that means reviewing student feedback on the course that comes in after the course is over.
I changed books in three of four classes this semester. Tech Writing remains the same: Graves and Graves, A Strategic Guide to Technical Communication. For A&E, Iâ€™m staying with OUPâ€™s So What? but have changed the target text – the text weâ€™re all reading to see how scholarly argument proceeds. This year it’s Jenkinâ€™s, Ford, and Green, Spreadable Media. Itâ€™s written in the scholary register that students in Argumentation are expected to use.
For the Comp Theory grad seminar, I updated to Villanueva and Arola, Cross-Talk, 3rd edition – not because itâ€™s a better edition but because the 2nd is no longer in print. And I dropped Wysocki, et al, Writing New Media for a broader source book, Lutkewitte, Multimodal Composition. That was a sacrifice, but new media has moved on and a sourcebook provides a better starting point for grad students in theory.
I made the biggest change in E-Rhetoric. For the second time, Iâ€™ve dropped Stoner and Perkins, Making Sense of Messages for Longaker and Walker, Rhetororical Analysis. Stoner and Perkins is far stronger on method, but Longaker brings in more focus on rhetorical concepts. Cheaper, too.
I keep finding that undergrad students are not enamored by a focus on method. They want to get to the rhetorical concepts and use the ad hoc methods they have developed informally in high school and their first couple of years at college. Itâ€™s frustrating. I say, â€œLook, thereâ€™s a method to this madness, a set of practices your professors use to figure out what a text means and how it works. We donâ€™t work by intuition. You can learn the method. It takes some practice, but it will hold you in good stead.â€
â€œNah. Letâ€™s just start and you can tell us when weâ€™re right. We learn video games by trial and error. Letâ€™s try that here, ok?”
A focus on method lets us develop far more insightful and significant analyses, but the process is intially tedious, requring repeated close observations and close description before bringing in rhetorical concepts. So Iâ€™ve toned down the emphasis on method for the looser hit-or-miss approaches students are in the habit of using. Iâ€™ll sneak in method by way of exercises and illustrations of how to proceed. Itâ€™s back to correcting student making instant conclusions and moving away from the analytical terms of rhetoric to informal terms, but those corrections are how we tend to learn: by closer and close approximation. Anyway, Iâ€™ll remix a lite version of method from Stoner and Perkins and bring that in as How to Proceed. Scaffolding.