Speaking Against Inequity in the Writing Classroom: Challenging the Performance Paradigm for Undergraduate Oral Presentations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.939Keywords:
oral presentations, scholarly speaking, genre, equitable teaching, critical pedagogyAbstract
Many existing scholarly speaking pedagogies continue to think of oral presentations as performances for an audience rather than dialogic exchanges of research. Such approaches, prominent in Canadian universities, can exacerbate classroom inequities by valuing certain ways of speaking and, by extension, certain speakers: speaking pedagogies, for example, that instruct students to speak “clearly,” dress “professionally,” or even to appear “confident,” can encode prejudices that privilege some voices and bodies over others, perpetuating discrimination based on gender, race, sexuality, language, and culture. This article argues that an equitable scholarly speaking pedagogy will teach students to instead think of oral presentations as opportunities for collaborative knowledge-making. We offer strategies to help students think of scholarly speaking as an integral part of the research process, rather than a stand-alone performance. Drawing on genre-theoretical approaches to academic writing, we argue that this shift can be achieved by using “precedents”—examples of scholarly speaking—to familiarize students with academic oral discourse’s genre conventions, helping students to recognize scholarly speaking as a situated and dialogic research genre. By shifting the goal of academic oral presentations towards cooperative knowledge-making, these strategies at once challenge student prejudices about who can be a “good” speaker and remind students of their responsibilities as audience members, resulting in a more equitable and inclusive classroom environment. To provide a pragmatic example of our approach, we outline the “Classroom Conference” assignment that we developed and evaluated, which uses precedents to prepare students for the oral presentations that are integrated as a step in completing their larger research projects. Analyzing survey data from students who completed this assignment, we recognize its success but also propose strategies for overcoming persisting challenges in getting students to shift their thinking toward an equitable model of scholarly speaking.
References
Aristotle (1960). The rhetoric of Aristotle. Trans. Lane Cooper, Prentice.
Bell, S. (2019). Learner-created podcasts: Fostering information literacies in a writing course. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 29, 51–63.
Boromisza-Habashi, D. Hughes, J. M. F. & Malowski, J. A. (2016). Public speaking as cultural ideal: Internationalizing the public speaking curriculum. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 20–34.
Bryant, K. (2017). Interrogating conflicting narratives of writing in the academy: A call for research. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 27, 13–18.
Burke, K. (1974). Philosophy of literary form. University of California Press.
Dannels, D. P. & Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2009). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: A call for scholarly cross-curricular advocacy. Communication Education, 58(1), 124–253.
Dannels, D. P., Palmerton, P. R., & Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2017). Oral communication in the disciplines: A resource for teacher development and training. Parlor Press.
Eaton, C. (2020). What can students tell us about ‘skill-building’ in Canadian writing studies? Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 30(1), 314–332.
Elbow, P. (2012). Vernacular eloquence: What speech can bring to writing. Oxford University Press.
Fassett, D. L. & Golsan, K. B. (2018). Reading between the lines: critical communication pedagogy and textbook development. In A. Ahmet & D. Trebing (Eds.), The discourse of special populations: Critical intercultural communication pedagogy and practice (pp. 39–54). Routledge.
Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2007). Critical communication pedagogy. SAGE.
Flores, N. & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Introduction. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre (pp. 1–24). Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Giltrow, J. (2016). Writing at the centre: A sketch of the Canadian history. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 26(1), 11–24.
Giltrow, J., Gooding, R. & Burgoyne, D. (2021). Academic writing: An introduction (4th ed.). Broadview.
Goldstein, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in a multilingual school: Choices, risks, and dilemmas. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2014). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.
Graves, R. (1994). Writing instruction in Canadian universities. Inkshed Publications.
Gullicks, K. A., Pearson, J. C., Child, J.T., and Schwab, C.R. (2005). Diversity and power in public speaking textbooks. Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 247–258.
Gunn, A. M. (2007). Relational communication as a central focus for the “communication across the curriculum” initiative. Across the Disciplines, 4(1), 1–10.
Harink, F. and Van Leeuwen, E. (2020). The art of presenting: Delivering successful presentations in the social sciences and humanities. Cambridge University Press.
Inoue, A. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for a socially just future. WAC Clearinghouse.
Inoue, A. (2019). How do we language so people stop killing each other, or what do we do about white language supremacy? College, Composition and Communication, 71(2), 352–369.
Kernbach, S., Bresciani, S. & Eppler, M.J. (2015). Slip-sliding away: A review of the literature on the constraining qualities of PowerPoint. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 292–313.
Lee, J. W. (2016). Beyond Translingual writing. College English, 79(2), 174–195.
Lippi-Green, R. (2011). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
Lunsford, A. (2019, Jun. 2) Rethinking the writing/speaking relationship: What’s talk got to do with it? [Keynote Address]. Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing Annual Conference. Vancouver, BC.
McMillen, P. S. & Hill, E. (2004). Why teach “research as a conversation” in freshman composition courses? A metaphor to help librarians and composition instructors develop a shared model. Research Strategies, 20(1–2), 3–22.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–67.
Motley, M. T. (1990). Public speaking anxiety qua performance anxiety: A revised model and an alternative therapy. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 5(2), 85–104.
Motley, M. T. & Molloy, J. L. (1994). An efficacy test of a new therapy (“Communication-Orientation Motivation”) for public speaking anxiety. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 48–58.
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). precedent, n. In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/149572.
Paré, A. (2009). Writing matters: Back to the future with rhetoric. Education Canada, 49(4), 4–8.
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Price, M. (2011). Mad at school: Rhetorics of mental disability and academic life. University of Michigan Press.
Public speaking and presentation. University of Toronto School of Continuing Education. https://learn.utoronto.ca/programs-courses/courses/1349-public-speaking-presentation
Presentation skills. Chapman Learning Commons. University of British Columbia. https://learningcommons.ubc.ca/student-toolkits/presentation-skills/
Rickford, J. R., Sweetland, J., Rickford, A. E. and Grano, T. (2012). African American creole and other vernacular Englishes in education. Routledge.
Rose, M. (1985). The language of exclusion. College English, 47(4), 341–359.
Sabalis, S. (2017). Creating the museum experience: Using museum education to teach oral presentation skills in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 17(1), 139–147.
Sánchez, F. (2019). Trans students’ right to their own gender in professional communication courses: A textbook analysis of attire and voice standards in oral presentations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 183–212.
Selfe, C. L. (2009). The movement of air, the breath of meaning: Aurality and multimodal composing. College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 616–663.
Simmons, J., & Wahl, S. T. (2016). Rethinking inclusion and diversity in communication education research. Communication Education, 65(2), 232–235.
Stumm, B. (2021). Joining the Dialogue: Practices for Ethical Research Writing. Broadview.
Swearingen, C. J. (2014). The new literacy/orality debates: Ebonics and the redefinition of literacy in multicultural settings. In L. Ouzgane & A. Lunsford (Eds.), Crossing borderlands: Composition and postcolonial studies (pp. 238–254). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Walsh, L., Zytoskee, A.M., Ragains, P., Slater, H. & Rachal, M. The Burkean parlor as boundary object: A collaboration between first-year writing and the library. Composition Studies, 46(1), 102–123.
Watson, M. (2018). Contesting standardized English: What harms are caused when we insist on a common dialect? American Association of University Professors, May–June. https://www.aaup.org/article/contesting-standardized-english
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: teaching and writing in the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press.
You, X. (2016). Cosmopolitan English and transliteracy. Southern Illinois University Press.
Young, V. A. (2004). Your average Nigga. College Composition and Communication, 55(4), 693–715.
Young, V. A. (2021). Say they name in Black English: George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Atatiana Jefferson, Aura Rosser, Trayvon Martin, and the need to move away from writing to literacies in CCCC and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication, 72(4), 623–639.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Craig Stensrud, Moberley Luger
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.
