An FYC for the people, of the people, by the people?

As we read through these articles bolstering student participation, student adaptation (on the part of the professor), and student negotiation, I begin to realize that the type of democratic negotiating system that Shor stands behind is very similar to how my classes have worked over the last 10 years of my higher learning. It is not explicit to Shor’s 4 points (rewrites, After-class group, protests, and the A-B-C Proposal plan) but they’ve seemingly included a few of these elements, namely rewrites and the ABC plan. From the beginning of the class we know that we have our syllabus and that these are the requirements of the class, the contract of our enrollment in that class. You always aim for the “A” and many teachers have had distinctions on what you as a student should do in order to obtain that “A” but those guidelines were never negotiable. Negotiating as a teacher with a student, in my own mind, would devalue my professional input to their degree of work but would also let the student feel more connected to the instruction they were receiving.

If we think about education as a commodity, my students should be able to get the most “bang for their buck” and leave the class feeling as though they’ve gained something in their English life that can translate into the rest of their collegiate career. This would mean that as a professor, I would almost have to negotiate with the students, allow them the rewrites, and allow for the protestation of grades. It would be difficult to hold an ACG because of time restrictions or participation but the other parts of Shor’s ideas seem completely doable in an FYC course. Having this type of course would also lend itself to the ebbs and flows that inevitably mold a university semester by allowing for students to have an autonomy and control of their grade that would free up many problems students might face in relation to their grade down the line because essentially, they have chosen their grades from the beginning and set out on the path to an “A” by completing the steps laid out for them in the beginning.

The rewrites in the class are beneficial for the student who will come in not being an expert (of course!) on SWE and over the course of the semester have the opportunity to see their work transform from their own dialect into SWE. To have this kind of transformation, I think we would have to take into consideration what Zhan-Lu is pushing for and that is an acceptance and a further inclusion of multiculturalism in the classroom and the University. Ownership of the course by the professor and an acceptance of their student’s own language will vastly improve the feel, outcome, and aura of a FYC course and allow the students a safe environment to grow in their writing. The toughest part will be to break (gently) those students from their pre-conceived notions about having an error free assignment. The language comes first; the mechanics will follow when they can find their own voice, their ownership, and their way in University life, and academia.

Shor, Ira. “Critical Pedagogy Is Too Big to Fail.” Journal of Basic Writing 28.2 (2009): 6-27. Print.

Lu, Min-Zhan. "Professing Multiculturalism The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone." Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Ed. Victor Villanueva, Kristin L. Arola. Urbana : National Council of Teachers of English, 2011. 467-483. Print.