Reflection Letter

Dear Bret,
I was unexpectedly less prepared for teaching RC 2001 over RC 1000. While most of the
assignments and teaching methods I used were similar, I failed to take into account the difference
a year and one semester of college can make on an individual student. Despite the relatively
negative experience the RC 2001 class provided, I learned a great deal teaching this semester and
I am glad that I was given the chance to teach the class.
I first want to express the usefulness of the RC 2001 mentor class, also known as RC
5124. The first half of the semester was highly beneficial as we had the chance to hear about the
assignments that others in the class were giving to their students The feedback we received from
both you and our cohort members was especially helpful in creating and refining our
assignments. Assignment feedback was so helpful that I wish that our class had been more
focused on that to the end. While the readings were interesting a large portion of the time, I feel
as if I learned more from the experiences of those in the class with me. The responses to the
articles we read asked for us to consider whether we would use pedagogical theories or styles in
our own classroom, but most of the time I already was or decidedly did not want to. On the other
hand, when listening to what my classmates were doing in their classrooms, I wanted to try their
ideas more readily. It may be the idea of sharing low stakes assignments over high stakes ideas
that interested me overall. The most important thing, in my opinion, is figuring out how best to
teach our students as we are in the classroom. While thinking ahead for future lessons is
important, I feel as if we focused too much on the future and too little on the now. I wish I had
been given more suggestions for in-class activities on how to teach certain lessons such as the
mini-ethnography or a literacy narrative. While I am happy with the results of the mentor class
on a general scale, I feel as if my in-class teaching methods suffered from the lack of shared
ideas, which I felt I got more of while teaching RC 1000.

On a different note, the mentor class really did help with problem-solving and support. A
lot of the time, each of us had the same problem with our classes and did not know until we
sought your help for a solution. It was reassuring to know that all of us were dealing with
troubles, but ways to solve these problems were truly in existence. Sometimes, it was also really
nice just to complain and have a support group day. It also helped that you explained real issues
to us about going forward into the job market and what we can expect to deal with no matter
what path we wound up on after Appalachians graduate program. Also, days spent working on
teaching us how to do larger projects like using Multimodality and Aportfolio in the classroom
were really beneficial. These bigger aspects of assignments helped us explain to our classes the
expectations we had for them when asking for multimodal projects or their portfolios to be
turned in on a funky platform like Aportfolio.
The Goal and Outcome in the class To observe fellow teachers in the composition
classroom and reflection on their pedagogical approaches was a very helpful component to the
course. Seeing another cohort member teaching puts into perspective the different approaches
each teacher has despite teaching the same material. Not only that, but you get to see how
different a set of students can make a classroom. Observations allow me to see how to explain
certain topics successfully or suggest to the teacher how I did the same thing in a different way.
Teachers can get so used to teaching their own way and forget that there may be better ways to
present a concept.
In analyzing other Goals and Outcomes, the goal To build upon the course objectives of
RC 5122 in order to develop an integrated and intentional composition pedagogy and To
discover and articulate pedagogical connections between RC 1000 and RC 2001 came around
simply. Pedagogically speaking, the classes are very similar; the context of the class is what
changes the most. In RC 5122 and in teaching RC 1000, I found my focus in teaching via digital

rhetoric and using collaborative learning. My main goal is to create a community within the
classroom where students learn together and share ideas. I run my classrooms with plenty of
group and class discussion. Some assignments stay the same from level to level on a general
scale. In both classes, I assigned a narrative, a rhetorical analysis, and a final research paper.
These assignments make sense progressively in teaching students to analyze themselves and
concepts out in the world. The differences between the classes come in the context of the year
the students are enrolled. In RC 1000, the goal is to introduce students to college writing. A
narrative allows them to consider themselves, how they have been writing, and where they hope
to go with their writing. In RC 2001, a narrative examines their literacy toward their major
specifically. The rhetorical analysis assignments can stay the same in most classes, by having
students rhetorically analyze a scholarly article. Personally, I had my RC 1000 course
rhetorically analyze a film or book in tandem with a group presentation comparing and
contrasting the book version to its film version. This comparison allowed students to see a
different medium as a form of writing. For RC 2001, their interest in their field led to them
reading a scholarly article that could serve as a bridge to their final mini-ethnography. While the
RC 1000 research paper was on any topic interesting to the students, I made my students be
specific in RC 2001 for researching within their major. With a focus on discourse communities as
well, I asked them to create a short documentary on a discourse community that comes out of
their field. While many assignments are similar, the difficulty and focus level is raised for RC
2001. Generally, I do not have to change my pedagogical style to teach lessons between the two
different contexts.
This class definitely helped me refine my teaching philosophy, but not so much based
off of the scholarship and best practices in composition theory and pedagogy. I have found that
what I solidified in RC 5122 and in teaching RC 1000 did not change as I went into RC 2001.

There was no scholarship presented in the class that really made a difference to me and my
teaching style. My philosophy was refined as I began to understand how I teach more, but I did
not gain new philosophies that I plan to use. I gained more skill with the goal to practice
assignment design, classroom management, and a process-based WAC pedagogy. I realized that
assignment sheets have to be far more detailed for sophomores than for freshman, possibly
because they listen to what you are saying and read less than first-year composition students. I
learned more about how to manage a classroom full of students who do not particularly care
about what you have to teach them, as it does not pertain to their major directly. That allowed me
to figure out ways to engage them by making connections I would not have presented to my
freshman, where you can just say You need to know this to write in college. Also, I have
become much more invested in process pedagogy as drafts continue to grow better and better
with each turn-in date. Personally, I still have issues with holistic grading and I believe
sophomores would never let a teacher get away with not telling them concrete grades for an
entire semester. I am fully invested in the portfolio-based pedagogy, though maybe not through
the Aportfolio platform. I believe the system limits student creativity as well as creates
unnecessary complications for the teacher and the students. The idea of implementing a platform
that you do not particularly find simple is difficult to teach. While there are individuals who can
explain it, students still end up confused and find the interface uninteresting.
In teaching RC 2001, I found that certain composition theories and practices go over
really well with students while others are more difficult. I have yet to find a perfect way to teach
Rhetorical Analysis via scholarly articles, but it is something that can be done. Students respond
better to rhetorically analyzing the visual. With practice analyzing videos and artwork, students
have less trouble in understanding the intention of rhetorical appeals. When it comes to
recognizing the intention through writing, something happens that has to do with transfer

knowledge. The idea that the text is no longer visual may be an aspect that changes how students
interpret the work. Students also enjoy learning about discourse communities in general. They
are interested in learning about the communities they are a part of and also those they are not.
Students are generally willing to try new things and the RC 2001 class proved that they were
willing to dive into the video game discourse community without any previous knowledge.
Students in RC 2001 appear to really understand research papers and almost beg to be given such
an assignment. I think it is interesting how RC 1000 students dread the research paper while RC
2001 students fear having to use technology or create creative projects.
My experience in teaching RC 2001 was vastly different from teaching RC 1000 as far as
the receptiveness of students but similar in technical aspects. I would love to keep teaching these
two different levels no matter where I find a future job. I want to perfect teaching in the two
different classes and I really want another shot at working with WAC students.
Sincerely,
Gabrielle Turgeon