Desiree Dighton’s piece “All Along the Watchtower: Some Kind of Way Out of Basic Writing Using Emerging Technologies” takes on some of the primary concerns and accolades for digital literacies’ incorporation into basic writing classrooms. She provides a thorough literature review of scholarship on technology in writing classrooms, citing Yancey, Davidson and Goldberg, Klages and Clark, and others.
Facing the issues of racial erasure, white privilege, and the implicit (or explicit) institutionalization of kyriarchy in basic writing is an uphill battle. Coleman et al.’s article “The Risky Business of Engaging Racial Equity in Writing Instruction: A Tragedy in Five Acts” unpacks many of these tensions in case studies and confessional writing from inside Minneapolis Community and Technical College. The article provides first-person perspectives from several authors in “Five Acts,” allowing for the creation of an internal discourse, while engaging with research from writing studies at large.
It’s fun and a bit bizarre to look at Barbara’s scholarship close-up. Her concerns in the longer article are still relevant today at CCNY. Accessibility of resources and even just the notion that writing studies in any form is an actual discipline is a bizarrely uphill battle, leaving writing programs stripped of funding and reliant on contingent labor.
Both Mina Shaughnessy and Sarah D’Eloia allude to one of the primary disconnects in the field of writing studies and pedagogy: how to make space for variable Englishes. While ca$h English is the currency valued by institutions and my FIQWS topic instructor, I want students to recognize and implement ca$h English, but not uncritically.
I want my students to use their variable English fluencies to get paid!