My initial framing of rhetoric and composition as a discipline occurred through Dr. Wilkes’ 7020 Pedagogy course. As my first major-specific course at Auburn, my knowledge of the field and the significant voices within it were consistently related back to considerations of how these theories could work and apply to our classrooms. As I have continued learning more about the field, I am still interested in the practical, pedagogical concerns that larger rhetorical theories enlighten. When conversations turn negative and hopeless about the current state of our world, I try to focus on pedagogical strategies as hope for future generations of students. I truly believe that composition instructors can play a small part in creating the kinds of people who go on to address our world’s most critical concerns. 

Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts in Writing Studies by Linda Adler-Kessner and Elizabeth Wardle reveals the larger level concerns of composition instruction that promote writing transfer and meta cognition work in our students. This book showed me how key scholars in the field apply rhetorical theory to tangible goals in the writing classroom. Composition courses do significantly deeper work than serve as a checkpoint in a student’s liberal arts education, rather these courses fundamentally shape the way that students approach their studies and future vocations. 

     Rhetoric and composition as a discipline is concerned with the development of people as writers, not just the improvement of writing itself. Process pedagogy, as presented by Donald Murray, lays the foundation for future rhet/comp scholars to focus their attention on students as human beings who will inevitably engage in their communities. James Berlin then argues that “a rhetoric can never be innocent, can never be a disinterested arbiter of the ideological claims of others because it is always already serving certain ideological claims” (Berlin 477). This piece helped to solidify my understanding of composition classes as more than just learning how to write. My pedagogy draws from ideological composition theories like process, critical, and expressivist, all which acknowledge the centrality of the student in the writing classroom. As rhetoric and composition theory made a social turn in the 1980s, classrooms became places for students to practice public writing and see its potential effects on their own discourse communities and larger community spaces. Composition theorists, like Anne Gere and Thomas Dean, evaluate the influence of writing within communities outside of the academy. I am also deeply interested in how students can connect their academic writing to real community needs. 

     Since taking Dr. Gruwell’s Histories of Rhetoric course, I can see how classical authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintillian were also interested in the moral development of the student as important to their ability to be effective public rhetoricians. While we hesitate today to think about “moral development” as a part of our composition courses, by asking students to consider ethical issues and community-based writing, we must acknowledge that the field is still considering very similar questions as our classical influences. John Duffy in Naming What We Know establishes the threshold concept that “Writing is About Making Ethical Choices”. His work in virtue ethics in the writing classroom reveals the way that composition teachers today are still implementing moral training in the classroom. When we ask students to think about issues such as plagiarism and diverse citation practices, we are teaching morals (even if we don’t like to use the term). I embrace the teaching of “morals” in the writing classroom because I know that it is impossible for my classroom to be ideologically neutral. Rather, I try to be a model for my students by rhetorically listening and ethically engaging with other writers.

     In my own classroom, I look for opportunities to show students how their writing matters within their discourse communities. In each of the courses I’ve taught at Auburn, I have spent a significant amount of time helping students understand their positionality and their communities. In order to practice, what I’ve termed, a human-forming pedagogy, the first step is to view my students as human beings—not as their writing products or even as their future vocations. Within my classroom, I should value students for their humanness. This means having a translingual approach to language differences (Horner), appreciating grammar and syntax mistakes as evidence of human writing, and celebrating drafts or pieces of unfinished writing. As I create my teaching philosophy statement and consider the goals of my teaching, I want my classroom environment to mimic my values. Because I believe that writing should shape our students into better human beings, then I must treat students as valuable human beings within my classroom. In my classroom, this will mean that I trust my students and enact a pedagogy of kindness (Denial). 

     Other pieces from ENGL7020, such as Ball’s Bad Ideas About Writing, Nicotra’s Becoming Rhetorical, Denial’s Pedagogy of Kindness, and Ratcliffe’s Rhetorical Listening: Race, Gender, and Whiteness, were eye-opening and transformative pieces for me in my understanding of my role as a composition teacher. These pieces shaped the formation of my, still-developing, teaching philosophy in ways that prioritize inclusivity, trust, and openness within my classroom. From my time in the education department, Deborah Dean’s What Works in Writing Instruction taught me the importance of working “as a writer” in front of my students. As community writing/service-learning scholars in composition rhetoric (Thomas Dean, Bruce Herzberg, Kevin Ball, Phyllis Ryder, and Jennifer Bay) argue, students should have real-life, public writing opportunities that connect them with the community, rather than completing university-based assignments for an audience of only their instructors. As the field of technical communication describes, students can become rhetorically self-conscious (Bazermen) and rhetorically professional (Fleming) humans. It is the field’s role to teach students how to become rhetorical and embody the ethical decision making practices and communication skills.

      For me, this means being open to my students about my positionality as a graduate student and as a professional writer. I often use examples from my own classes or work assignments to talk about so that students can see how writing exists in the world beyond our ENGL 1100 classroom. I have also incorporated some of these pieces into my portfolio. My grant infographic served the immediate purpose of fulfilling the course requirements of ENGL 7080, but I knew that I wanted to create something that would be valuable for my freelance writing business as well. I’ve been able to use my infographic many times in consultations with nonprofit organizations who are interested in hiring me as a freelance grant writer. I want my students to see their own work as potentially usable in a variety of circumstances. I also included an annual report that I created for ENGL 7010 that was also for an actual client. My students helped me think through some design choices for the report when we considered elements of rhetorical analysis. They were also able to practice the “describe, evaluate, suggest” model of peer review by looking at the document. Again, I want to be a writer in front of my students, which means being able to receive feedback from them! 

      Another major issue in the discipline is related to the emergence of generative AI in composition classrooms. Gen AI has prompted a resurgence of literacy crises (like “Why Johnny Can’t Read) across public spheres, leaving composition scholars and teachers to, once again, define literacy and insist upon its instruction in our classrooms. While our 7050 special topics class discussed the pros and cons of a prohibition approach to AI in the classroom (due to the many ethical concerns associated with its usage), the consensus of our discussion was that AI literacy is now in the realm of rhetoric and composition teachers to cover in our courses. I believe our job as composition teachers is to teach students what is distinctly and uniquely human about their writing. We must teach them AI literacy, expose them to the associated ethical concerns, and above all, teach them to value what humans can bring to the rhetorical situation that AI cannot. Students should see themselves as more than machine-trainers, but rather as rhetorical human beings who can choose when to use and not to use technology based on the situation. When we view our students as competent and capable of learning these lessons, there will not be a need for policing and surveillance technology in our classrooms, which disrupt mentorship relationships and break trust. 

      My major revision paper for this portfolio was originally my ENGL 7050 seminar paper. Our readings prompted research questions such as “how does technology inform pedagogy and shape student development as rhetoricians?” and “how are classical rhetorical ideas and contemporary technology compatible?” Even more broadly, I was questioning who I want my students to be when they leave my classroom. Should/does technology affect this vision? My initial paper was an extensive literature review of how other scholars have approached these questions and a brief sketch of my human-forming pedagogy idea. My revision work took the initial research and ideas from this seminar paper and transformed into a journal article submission for the Journal of Writing with Artificial Intelligence. I expanded the classical rhetorical context of my framing and spent more time on practical applications. This revision process made me completely reconsider the audience, purpose, and context for my writing. I then took another one of my seminar paper ideas (rhetorical listening) and created my CCCCs presentation. In this presentation, I examine the ways that scholars have incorporated rhetorical listening into their classrooms and determine if/how those ideas can be used alongside AI literacy instruction. 

      Both of these pieces address the literacy concerns in composition by considering ways the field have addressed previous “crises” through pedagogy and research and extending those strategies to the new crisis with artificial intelligence. 

Even though the technology of our generation is different, our goal as composition teachers has not changed since the earliest rhetorical conversations. We should teach students what is distinctly human about their writing and encourage them to become rhetorical themselves. Rhetorical education, through revitalized classical pedagogical strategies, still has the power to make students communicators who can engage with new technologies ethically and productively.

      I will be continuing my education in Auburn’s PhD program this fall. As a teacher and scholar, I desire to practice my ideas of human-forming pedagogy in the classroom and continue researching what is human about writing. I want to continue engaging in professional writing opportunities as I have availability because I truly believe being a writer in front of my students will help them conceptualize their own professional identities. I also want to continue learning about writing with artificial intelligence and finding a balance between the necessity of teaching AI literacy and the ethical concerns of using the technology at all. Despite negative circumstances and depressing realizations that arise in rhetoric and composition discussions, I try to remain optimistic in human nature, especially in the power that informed, trained writing teachers can have within their classrooms. As I grow in my own teaching and learning, I welcome opportunities to work in curricular development and teacher training. Auburn has guided me in becoming rhetorical myself. As I am exposed to new ideas and strategies, I hope that they continue to shape me as a person and inform all of my communication.