Culturing Composition: Digital Ethics in Teaching Writing
- Katherine
- Jul 4, 2024
- 4 min read
Updated: Jul 7, 2024
As the "Chat GPT Crisis" sweeps through English classrooms, I can't help but reflect on Kristin L. Arola's article, "Composing as Culturing: An American Indian Approach to Digital Ethics." Arola's argument, emphasizing process over product and encouraging reflective practices in writing, resonates deeply with my teaching experiences, particularly amidst the rising concerns about AI and plagiarism.
Trust and the Writing Process
In the past year, the obsession with catching AI-generated work has strained the trust between teachers and students, something that Nina Bamberg writes extensively on in her article “Teacher-Student Trust is Eroding Because of AI; But It Doesn’t Have to” on Pedagog.ai. Arola, in alignment with Bamberg’s view, points out that "the narratives surrounding plagiarism are built upon false notions of authenticity and a focus on product over process" (276). This hyper-focus on catching AI usage can create a counterproductive environment, pitting educators against their students. I believe that trust is a cornerstone of effective teaching. When we concentrate too much on plagiarism, we risk losing that trust and the opportunity to foster genuine learning.
A recent incident reinforced this belief. At the end of the school year, while discussing which students were ready to move to honors-level English, a colleague questioned the authenticity of a student's work based on its sophistication and use of words and phrases common to AI writing. Despite my assurances of the student's growth and capabilities, the suspicion lingered. This skepticism, driven by an overemphasis on potential AI use, undermines the student's accomplishments and the teacher-student relationship. We need to trust our students and focus on the writing journey, as Arola suggests, emphasizing that "plagiarism detection software does not, and cannot, detect the process a writer undergoes to compose a text" (277).
Cultural Appropriation in Remix Culture
Arola also warns of the risks inherent in remix culture, noting that it can run the risk of becoming appropriation if not done reflectively and respectfully (277). This brings to mind the prevalence of mainstream slang derived from African American Vernacular English (AAVE). It's crucial to recognize and respect the origins of these terms rather than appropriating them without acknowledgment, especially among white speakers.
Swing Dance and Cultural Roots
The concept of cultural appropriation also reminds me of the swing dance community. Many ballroom dancers learn styles like "East Coast Swing" in a highly structured manner, often devoid of its rich cultural roots in Black history and culture. This is especially true for "West Coast Swing," which was adapted to suit the Hollywood film industry's preferences. Even using terms like "swing dance" to refer to the plethora of dance styles can be seen as a whitewashing of the original Lindy Hop (If you're interested in this topic, iLindy.com has numerous articles on Lindy Hop and Blackness). Recognizing the origins and evolution of these dance forms is essential. As a white dancer, I strive to honor the traditions and contributions of Black culture to the music and movements I love.
Arola's term "culturing" — the process of making that is active, reflective, and relational — is vividly present in dance. Learning a dance form involves more than just steps; it's about understanding the music, the culture, and the relationships within the dance community. As Arola states, "By making in a particular way, we honor a particular way of being while not foreclosing the possibilities and potentials for new ways of being" (280).
Reflective Practitioners in the Classroom
To cultivate reflective practitioners in the classroom, we must shift our focus from merely detecting plagiarism to understanding the context and process of writing. As Arola asserts, this involves recognizing that "authors and texts do not exist in isolation" and engaging students in discussions about the values embedded in texts (282). Reflective practitioners are critically aware of both process and product, understanding the risks of cultural appropriation and the importance of being in relation to the ideas, texts, and communities that shape their work (282).
Much of Arola’s discussion on honoring the process, cultures, and people related to a text, connects back to the ideas held within Culturally Responsive Teaching and the multimodal home places I mentioned in my last blog post. In that blog post, I described the manner I teach Shakespeare. In my Shakespeare unit, I encourage students to interpret scenes through diverse cultural lenses and create their own performances, allowing them to bring their unique experiences and home places into their work. This approach aligns with Arola's vision of "culturing" composition, fostering a learning environment that values process, reflection, and cultural awareness.
Conclusion
Reflecting on Arola's insights, it's clear that as educators, we need to focus on the writing process, trust our students, and cultivate an awareness of cultural contexts in our teaching practices. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and reflective learning environment, honoring the diverse backgrounds and experiences our students bring to the classroom.
I hope this reflection on Arola's article encourages you to think more deeply about the writing process and the cultural contexts that shape our compositions.
References to Previous Blog Posts
For further insights on digital cultural rhetoric and its implications in the classroom, check out my previous posts:
These posts explore various aspects of digital cultural rhetoric and offer practical strategies for incorporating these principles into your teaching.
Comments