Next, Courtney, I absolutely agree that writing workshops and peer editing are excellent ways for students to engage in dialogic discourse and to feel as through their writing is, in fact, in conversation with a real, meaningful audience. I tend to think that we already do many things in the classroom that allow our students to engage in dialogic discourse (conferences, peer review, group work, etc), yet I’m not sure that our students always see those activities as meaningful because the activities are still taking place inside the classroom in which a certain authenticity is impossible.

Last, I think it’s very interesting that you both mentioned that fact that students are constantly engaging in hermeneutics/interpretation in discovering their professors’ expectations and standard of work. Will, you said, “We do that by showing that we are experts already, and that it is the students’ job to fit their discourse production and analysis methods within our disciplines,” and Courtney said, “I believe that observant students already ‘study’ their professors, in an attempt to discover what their professors are looking for.” I think that’s a very interesting perspective on the act of interpretation in the classroom setting that Kent seems to ignore entirely.

I also think that creative writing classes have often embraced dialogic writing, especially through workshops. When students share their work with one another, they are able to hear, first hand, how people are interpreting the stories that they’ve written. They can then draw on this feedback as they are revising their stories, keeping in mind how their audience interpreted symbols, setting, and dialogue in their pieces.

A similar technique might be used in a composition class, or in a technical writing class. An instructor could ask students to write for one another, and use workshops as a way of encouraging dialogue between writer and audience.

On a different note, I’m not entirely convinced that Kent’s call for instructors to present their own hermeneutic strategies before giving exams or assigning papers is as radical as he makes it seem. I believe that observant students already “study” their professors, in an attempt to discover what their professors are looking for. This is actually a hermeneutic act; the student tries to interpret the instructor’s hermeneutic strategy.

Sources:

Johnson, Robert. “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 91-103. Print.

Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42. JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. PDF.

Johnson, Robert. “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 91-103. Print.

Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42. JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. PDF.

Smith, Tania. “What Connection Does Rhetorical Theory Have to Technical and Professional Communication?’ Readings for Technical Communication. Ed. Jennifer MacLennan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 114-121. PDF

To tell you the truth, I actually agree with Kent’s argument that “no course can teach the acts of either writing or reading” (37) (italics added for emphasis). I think the main line from Kent’s article that led me to agree with him is this doozy: “the hermeneutic guessing required in all discourse production and analysis can be only refined; it cannot be codified and then taught” (39) (again, with italics added for emphasis).

There’s really only so much a teacher/instructor/professor can do for their students. Those students who have made it to college are not communicating for the first time, so it’s a little crazy to insist that teachers/instructors/professors teach their students how to read and write. All we can do is refine what they already know how to do; we can attempt to improve upon their Vorhabe. We do that by showing that we are experts already, and that it is the students’ job to fit their discourse production and analysis methods within our disciplines.

That’s probably why Kent include these lines:

No quiz, no examination, no paper, no dialogic interaction of any kind could be employed in any course without the instructor first talking about her (interjection here: I love that Thomas Kent, a male, always says “she” – why is that?) own hermeneutic strategy for interpreting the discourse employed in her course… In this scenario writing and reading instructors would become the new Sophists; they would assume the pragmatic responsibility for helping students adapt their discourses to the discourses of others. 40

Academic disciplines are already set in their ways, so we, as instructors, can only show students how to communicate within the bounds of those disciplines. Students also come in with their own ideologies and belief systems. We, as instructors, might show them, as Smith asks everyone to, why asking the question “why” is important (116), but we probably won’t be able to force students to analyze texts according to a codified standard. Not with language the way it is.