This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Argument, Evidence, and Engagement: Training Students As Critical Investigators and Interpreters of Rhetoric and Culture
Allyson D. Polsky
When students ﬁrst arrive on campus, even at academically elite institutions, it is highly unlikely that they come with the recognition that all academic writing is argument-based and that all knowledge claims require substantiation. They have often been educationally and culturally conditioned to grant authors too much authority, and for the most part they are quite aware of their position in the knowledge hierarchy. While harshly critical of their own logic leaps, sloppy support, organization ﬂaws, and other cardinal sins, most students are reluctant to acknowledge similar failings in any established author, particularly one assigned by their professor. It is rare, then, that they see themselves as the audience being addressed or as an audience even worth addressing, much less as one that an author is actively attempting to persuade to believe or to act in a certain way. Pedagogically, I have been hesitant to organize argument courses around familiar public debates (capital punishment, drug policy, etc.) for two main reasons. First, these debates tend to produce sides too sharply drawn and arguments too obviously and clearly formulated. Students may choose sides solely because of their emotional response, their perception of which side will be easier to defend, or their sense of where the teacher stands. Second, and more signiﬁcantly, to restrict the scope of an argument course to explicit debates is to neglect the relationship between argument and knowledge production, a relationship that pervades academic writing across the disciplines but is rarely acknowledged.
Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture Volume 3, Number 3, © 2003 Duke University Press 427
Prown seeks to overcome cultural perspective by encouraging awareness of bias and prioritizing sensory engagement over mental interpretation. First I instructed them to 428 Pedagogy . This method privileges objectivity and follows a sequential progression from description of what can be observed from the object itself. In the ﬁrst part of the course. Furthermore. I set out to create a writing assignment based on empirical research.and revision-intensive undergraduate course at Yale University. The second part of the course builds on this foundation and applies it to the analysis of contemporary topics including racial proﬁling. forces careful consideration of the relationship between observation and language. and pornography. The ﬁrst reading is an excerpt from a collection of Jules David Prown’s (2002) seminal writings titled Art As Evidence: Writings on Art and Material Culture. There are excellent reasons to begin the course with Prown. to encourage my students to approach Prown’s text as an argument and evaluate it for themselves. because his approach “aspires to the objectivity of scientiﬁc method” (Prown 2002: 75). his legendary status as an eminent (Yale) art historian and my having selected his book as the one with which to initiate the course may contribute to my students’ unquestioning acceptance of his authority. Prown champions artifacts. Inasmuch as he is concerned with approaching an artifact on its own terms. Prown proposes a systematic method for the study of material culture. to empathetic deduction of the relationship between the object and its users. as primary data. His text can be tricky for students to recognize as an argument.For these reasons. to speculation and the formulation of hypotheses. In the fall 2002 semester. Widely regarded as the father of material-culture studies. His text emphasizes that seeing and perceiving are key components of intellectual engagement. Reading and writing projects enable them to become aware of how we interpret the interaction of words and images to make sense of the world and how that interaction is embedded in relations of knowledge and power. There is also an element of risk in beginning with Prown. abortion politics. and discourages the rush to reach conclusions before considering all of the evidence. I use not an argument-based composition text but a broad range of modern nonﬁction prose in my writing. “the only historical occurrences that continue to exist in the present” (73). He believes that by analyzing artifacts. which he deﬁnes as man-made or man-modiﬁed objects. we can gain ﬁrsthand access to the cultures that produced and consumed them. however. I introduce the students to texts that theorize how rather than just what words and images mean.
At our next class meeting. I gave my students detailed written instructions to restrict their description of the iBook to its appearance. Virtually all of them noted that they could not eliminate cultural perspective from their analyses and found it nearly impossible to avoid describing or referring to the iBook as a functional device. When this happened. however. During our postdraft workshop my students and I discussed this issue and the questions it raised about authority and evidence. a postdoctoral fellow who specializes in twentiethcentury decorative arts (and who had studied with Prown) spoke with my stuPolsky Students As Critical Investigators 429 . Then I asked them to visit the Yale University Art Gallery and test Prown’s method through the analysis of an Apple iBook on display in the gallery’s permanent exhibition on decorative arts from the 1950s to the present. Despite having received guidelines that clearly articulated the purpose of the assignment. After performing Prown’s method. I told them to pretend that they were from a time and a culture completely unfamiliar with computers. their conclusions contradicted this critique and applauded Prown’s method. Nevertheless. I realized that we cannot expect students to “own” their investigations if we ask them to limit their self-awareness in the process of inquiry and observation. To prevent the interference of cultural perspective. I was surprised by the overwhelming degree to which they had approached the assignment self-consciously as detached observers rather than active participants and had internalized this failure. Vocabulary such as touchpad. the possible relationships between it and other nearby items in the gallery’s collection. I did not expect all of my students to recognize immediately that on some level the assignment was an experiment designed to “fail. and screen was therefore prohibited. without regard for its function.” to expose the weaknesses and areas of contention in Prown’s argument. when I read their ﬁrst drafts. many students wrote in their introductions that they were “applying” rather than “testing” Prown’s method. they almost invariably blamed themselves or the iBook rather than Prown’s method. In making sense of their reluctance to question Prown’s text and validate their own inquiries. keyboard. the students incorporated their summaries into three.draft a brief summary of Prown’s main ideas. Even when students suppressed their “academic voices” and openly expressed their frustration with the experiment. and the reasons that a curator might include an iBook in an art gallery—in the deduction and speculation stages. In their analyses the students were allowed to consider only external factors — such as their emotional reactions to the iBook.to four-page essays on their iBook analyses and their conclusions about Prown’s text.
430 Pedagogy . Between their ﬁrst and ﬁnal drafts. to stronger support of evidentiary claims. and Ellen Alvord for enthusiastically coordinating Wilson’s visit. Good writing and good arguments are explorations and expressions of thought. the students became aware that a range of perspectives. perhaps more important. As they revised. mine. the result is higher academic performance and.dents about Prown’s method and ﬁelded their questions about the placement of the artifact in the gallery. and their ﬁnal drafts showed greater engagement with the issues and greater coherence of thought. a greater investment in scholarship and selfexpression. the postdoc’s. and their own. They saw that questioning a text was meant not to demolish or dismiss it but to lead to the aﬃrmation of intellectual curiosity. including Prown’s. They reﬂect a process of discovery. and to deeper understanding. the students honed their descriptive and analytic skills considerably. When students realize that they are active agents in knowledge production. not merely an exercise in mastery. They had begun to recognize the value of critical reading and inquiry. guided their evaluation of the strengths of Prown’s method (chieﬂy that it requires close observation prior to analysis and critique and that it makes us aware of cultural perspective) and of its limitations (it does not recognize that cultural perspective may be not a hindrance but a powerful knowledge source). Argument courses should enable students to use writing to clarify their values and to arrive at positions that they truly believe in and are inspired to execute in real-world settings. Note I wish to thank Barbara Stuart and Valerie Smith for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay. Kristina Wilson for the contributions she made to our class discussion of Prown’s method. In subsequent writing they were more willing to take risks and to question and work through an author’s claims while developing and supporting their own viewpoints.
A. and talk about why he or she likes it.Teaching Craft. Teaching Criticism: The Creative Writer in the Literature Class Gerry LaFemina As a poet holding an M. I always ask students to bring copies of one of their favorite poems to the ﬁrst class meeting. and the way it relates to other poems of its time and participates in a dialogue with other poems in a more timeless and international context allows it also to be taught in upper-level courses. When I teach a poetry workshop. inﬂuence. Students’ expectations are shaped by the work their peers bring in on the ﬁrst day. I want to know what poetry means for him or her. some deﬁning sensibility by the student writer for the rest of the class. whether at West Virginia University or at writers’ conferences or as a visiting professor. too. I often bring Levis’s (1971) poem: LaFemina The Creative Writer in the Literature Class 431 . I am not looking for an explication. I teach literature. exactly. Levis’s poem perfectly illustrates my belief that contemporary poets bring to the literature class an understanding of composition that includes a set of cultivated skills that admit. and semiotic and/or cognitive leaps whose eﬀect is realized through revision and craftsmanship. in a seemingly unconscious manner. I ask each student to distribute the copies. I am often asked by my colleagues on the critical front how. read the poem aloud. this ﬁrst-day exercise allows them access to other poets’ work that they may be unfamiliar with and gives them some understanding of how other student poets think about work. I participate in this exercise. just as its smart craftsmanship allows it to be taught as a lyric sample in the creative writing classroom. Bringing this element into the literature classroom provides balance to traditional criticism and gives insights to students who often wonder if writers really think all these things through. Its brevity and my own connection with it make it ﬁt well in my introductorylevel classes.A. Larry Levis’s poem “Wound” oﬀers a good illustration. This is important: often student poets do not know what to expect from others in the class. in creative writing and an M. and therefore I have to explain the various ways I talk about how poems come together as a series of choices.F. Explaining that I teach literature as a writer is not enough. what I am looking for is an aesthetic statement. allusions. in literature.
Furthermore. This establishes for them my passion for and relationship to the work. turning the attention away from the speaker in the ﬁrst stanza. “gently.” We also talk about the centrality of the poem’s main image: the man who loves the “old wound / picked up in a razor ﬁght // on a street nobody remembers. I also talk about how the enjambment across the stanza break reinforces the notion of how one person impacts another person even after their separation. and how the ﬁrst and last vowel sounds of the stanza are the same: I. with “Look at him: / even in the dark he touches it gently. when the poet addresses the reader. I point out the tonal shift enacted by the sudden repetition of sound — the distance from this hurting that Levis establishes with the ee sounds as the poem changes from the us of the ﬁrst stanza to this third person. I talk about its importance to me as a writer. by going through Levis’s poem carefully. I discuss Levis’s use of sounds in the ﬁrst stanza: how you and wound are end-rhymed. and in “Wound” one sees a simple control that teaches a great deal. so that you is equated with wound. I talk about its two stanzas of relatively equal length. I assure them. which enact the meaning of the poem’s separated couple. I model for students a very deliberate way of reading. The close reading a workshop aﬀords is one of 432 Pedagogy . the latter echoing the former. this old man. When I talk about this poem in workshop.I’ve loved you the way a man loves an old wound picked up in a razor ﬁght on a street nobody remembers. I discuss the turn in the poem’s last two lines. and I ﬁght. When talking about the second stanza. is deliberate.” This direct address startles the reader — it brings him or her out of the deep imagism of the poem — and then the poem deﬂates. “Wound” was really the ﬁrst contemporary poem that sang to me. Wrecking Crew. and I tell my students how I happened to discover it and the book in which it appears. Student writers often need to learn how to control the image. There is little other sound play in this stanza. Lastly. Then I go beyond what I have asked of them: I talk about the poem’s form and how seeing this poem as a crafted artwork has enabled it to stay with me as an important poem.” It is both concrete and abstract: enough detail is given for the reader to envision it. Look at him: even in the dark he touches it gently. This. ﬁght. You are a wound. but Levis allows the reader space for his or her imagination to ﬁll in the blanks. well.
“For all its date  . Although Wrecking Crew had already come out.” Its poems are inﬂuenced by the minimalist surrealism of that era and by the Spanish and Latin American poets who were read with vigor at that time. and in contemporary literature classes. There are.the ways it works well. . other inﬂuences in this poem — more direct inﬂuences that I think are important to discuss. The gesture here — this “sad hand” that “returns . Still. Justice’s work and inﬂuence made Levis want to study with him at Syracuse University. or the various arguments for a logic of the line. however. I pick poems as illustrations that interest me as a writer. Charles Simic. I pick poems that I care about to emphasize certain points. there is the obvious inﬂuence of Donald Justice.” In the literature class it is essential to show how writers. but the sad hand returns to it in secret repeatedly encouraging the bandage to speak of that other world we might have borne. meter. Wrecking Crew is very much a book of the sixties. Therefore I often talk about the structure of “Wound” in the literature classroom. . . or Jean Valentine — and later we will talk about Laura Jensen and see how her work continues this tradition. teaching literature means teaching more than structure: I teach inﬂuence and how the poem is a product of its literary time. in this respect. extended metaphor. Mark Strand. in secret” to the wound — alludes to the hand in Levis’s poem that “touches it gently. The two inevitably inﬂuenced each other. It is a passion born of the shared experience of composition in the art form. One advantage the practicing poet has in the literature classroom is the ability to choose work that he or she is passionate about—and passionate in a diﬀerent way than literary critics are. a passion for poems that invigorate the poet or challenge him or her to try a new artistic paradigm. in poetry survey classes. First. In this way I supplement what the critic brings to students. whether I am discussing form. alliteration. as we see in the third section of Justice’s (1995: 24) poem “Sadness. As David Young (2001: 62) notes. My literature students will have read other poets of that era — for instance. I have taught this poem in forms classes. as I do above. . the workshop is very much like the literature classroom. emphasizing that form helps enact meaning and that even free verse has an apparent formal component. especially those who are LaFemina The Creative Writer in the Literature Class 433 .” which begins: I say the wood within is the dark wood or a wound no torn shirt can entirely bandage.
the reemergence of lyricism. 1921 – 24). and artistic challenges born of engagement with other written work. and geography. 434 Pedagogy . Using this work also emphasizes how those early inﬂuences remain.” Often literature students. Therefore.one’s contemporaries. 1966. especially that of César Vallejo. he would have had access to the language of the Latin American poets. the appearance of new formalism. the debates about whether poetry really matters. More important.” from The Dollmaker’s Ghost [Levis 1981]). often create a dialogue. is apparent in Levis’s work. formally. which includes his “García Lorca: A Photograph of the Granada Cemetery. vision. Justice’s poem “The Poet at Seven” obviously inﬂuenced. I emphasize that writing is about choices. longer poems. I point out Justice’s inﬂuence on Levis again and again (for instance. Levis was inﬂuenced early on by Federico García Lorca. trends. I also call attention to the inﬂuence of Latino poets on Levis’s work. that they are not just inspired products of emotional release — they are a part of dialogue that crosses time. an imprint of later Lorca stands out on the poems that would become Levis’s The Dollmaker’s Ghost. style. we see how his vision helps him ﬁnd poets who then inﬂuence him but also allows him to shape those inﬂuences in order to deﬁne his personal aesthetic and his later work. especially early Lorca (c. at least thematically and in the title.) I also point out how the imagist minimalism of Levis’s early works continues to inﬂuence line and stanza in his later. as we go through the late twentieth century. (I may have my students read both “The Poet at Seven” and “The Poet at Seventeen” to show them how inﬂuence continues but style changes. fail to understand that poems do not happen in a vacuum. In survey courses. When working with Levis. Their inﬂuence. I turn to his later work to help deﬁne some of the changes in American poetry since the 1960s: the movement away from deep imagism to meditation. I have them read early and later Lorca and early and later Levis and may have them write about how the two poets mirror each other as they evolve and how they are diﬀerent. the ascension of Jorie Graham. when I talk about Levis in the literature class. therefore our discussion of Levis and Justice leads to talk about the chain of inﬂuence. Poets have always participated in a conversation on the page with their contemporaries and with their literary ancestors. Levis’s “The Poet at Seventeen”). rhythmically. and imagistically. especially those in freshman and sophomore classes. As a southern California poet who grew up with migrant Mexican workers (see “Picking Grapes in an Abandoned Vineyard. inﬂuences.
can recognize facets of poetic practice that other literary scholars might miss. Community or Contact Zone? Deconstructing an Honors Classroom Phyllis Surrency Dallas and Mary Marwitz At the Modern Language Association Literacy Conference in 1990. because the moves they have made in the creation of a work resemble those of the writers they teach. often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (see also Bizzell 1994. a concern informing our approach to an introductory composition sequence for honors students. Mary Louise Pratt (1999: 584) identiﬁed “contact zones” as “social spaces where cultures meet. We hoped to provide provocative readings that. rhythms. Given that students often suppose that there is an idealized community of readers for texts. idealized construction. I bring to this discussion another element: a legacy of being inﬂuenced by certain writers. Often writers who teach in the literature classroom. and so forth in their own work and in the literature classroom in such a way that their students can understand the mechanisms that make the poem come to life. suspect because its assumed unity suppresses rather than liberates marginalized voices.As a writer. Pratt juxtaposes “community” with “contact zone. van Slyck 1997). Like engineers who take apart engines only to put them back together. She is especially disturbed by the dangers posed by an idealized vision of community that legitimizes the professor as authority (Pratt 1999: 590 – 93). Dallas and Marwitz Deconstructing an Honors Classroom 435 . and they can revitalize and reimagine those themes. we wanted the curriculum to end students’ search for one voice speaking the truth. gain insight into their workings. My literary DNA can be traced through Levis to them. In the literature classroom I am a poet. clash. and improve the next generation of engines. That experience is the writer’s greatest asset in the literature classroom. poets who teach literature break down poems to see how they work.” deﬁning the former as an imaginary. Miller 1994. a poet does not just sit and compose poems without inﬂuence but is engrossed and engaged in the traditions of those writers who came before. images. and grapple with each other.
an endowed four-year program. and respond to the strange. we chose texts that required them to examine diﬀerent perspectives and that we hoped would encourage diverse responses from them. These guest speakers. aside from one Asian American — an adopted Korean — they were white. Aside from one Bulgarian. The Georgia Southern University Bell Honors Program. “toward the sciences and vocationalism. we paired The Strange Case of Dr.” While pleased with our course design. (1996) observes of most honors students. liberatory because students and teachers must “learn how to read. as “a kind of symbiont to the usual professors. as one student noted. to construct a diﬀerent contact zone. as Phyllis van Slyck (1997: 155) writes. we wanted to decenter traditional readings and require students to rethink and reread both literary and personal texts. we oﬀered alternative readings of the texts through scholarly articles and through our own responses to the texts. we invited faculty from women’s. where “students examined texts which foreground and critique diﬀerent cultural groups’ attitudes towards a common issue. we hoped that they would begin to question assumptions about themselves.” we realized that the honors students would probably have a strong sense of community. postcolonial.” Furthering the theme of multiple perspectives. multivocal texts. Our middle-class student population was not greatly diverse. embodying the disparate voices of the academy. Miller (1994: 408) suggests about Pratt’s notions of idealized structures. “Seeing and Writing. we faced challenges in deconstructing the “honors” identity and in the classroom’s power dynamics. Hyde with Mary Reilly.” Pairing canonical accounts with postcolonial (Wide Sargasso Sea) and with the marginalized (Mary Reilly). as Maynard Mack Jr. understand.as Richard E. those with common plots and characters (Mary credits David Cowart for the idea of symbiotic pairs). and biblical studies to guest-lecture. Jekyll and Mr.” To ensure that these students were not seduced by a false notion of community. our students were American-raised and almost all from small towns in southern Georgia. As we planned the course. served. gender. and culture that were embedded in the urtexts. lends itself to this strong sense because its students take courses together and study all year with the same writing instructors. As our students learned to recognize that the symbiotic texts questioned assumptions about social class. To reinforce the liberal arts foundation of the honors program and to prevent our voices from dominating. and almost all had majors tending. sometimes threatening. Jane Eyre with Wide Sargasso Sea. would create contact zones. For example. We tried. They uniformly considered themselves academically talented. Although the students 436 Pedagogy . We read symbiotic texts.
One student admitted: “I will never look at Jane Eyre in the same way again. They wanted the text to be authoritative. Hyde—we wanted them to appreciate that readers can and do respond to texts as individuals. . wanted power to be simple. The “performance anxiety” of our students often prevented them from voicing or accepting alternatives in a public forum. wanted one reading. In the “safe zone” of the dorm at 3 A.” Sometimes students insisted on collapsing the two texts into one. we found it diﬃcult to elicit disagreement or dissonance in the classroom. we realized that disagreement did occur outside class. the symbiont texts led our students to what they saw as the real story. In other words. considering the traits that Paul F.indicated that they sometimes felt as if they were serving “two masters”— a key phrase from Dr. however. . This reaction should not seem unusual. In these pieces they spoke of bouncing ideas that they themselves characterized as bizarre or far-fetched oﬀ selected friends. these students tended to use the second text as a “corrective” for the ﬁrst and to reduce the complexity of the paired readings to a single one. instead of promoting diversity as we had hoped. enlarged text. often contradictory viewpoint of the symbiont. With the pairing of Hippolytus and Phaedra. direct. who are often enculturated by a system that assumes a right answer and rewards them for reiterating it. especially the smartest ones. clearly identiﬁable. they were uncomfortable with coexisting belief systems—at least in the classroom. Haas (1992) attributes to honors students. The portrayal of Rochester in the new text has permanently changed my opinion of him in the original work. From their reading responses and the cover letters to their essays. Because in Wide Sargasso Sea Jean Rhys uses the name Antoinette for the character of Bertha from Jane Eyre and shifts the chronology to highlight the problems of colonialism in the Caribbean. however. Despite our goal of deconstructing the imagined community and promoting multiple voices. By sharing these “far-fetched” reactions Dallas and Marwitz Deconstructing an Honors Classroom 437 . one student dismissed the novel out of hand. Jekyll and Mr.M.. many students were disturbed that Jean Racine had dared alter Phaedra’s death and add a character (Aricia) even though they learned that Euripides himself had manipulated the mythology for dramatic purposes. they had ranged widely in their responses. Thus. After reading Wide Sargasso Sea.” one student argued in defense of his need for unity. they knew the real Rochester. At other times students surprised us by rejecting the second text as not right. . “A book written as an alternate point of view is not complete without the book it is based on. Rather than accommodate the additional.
. When a guest speaker. how casually we dress. he knew he wasn’t supposed to. This time they seemed afraid not of having the wrong answer but of having their beliefs questioned. their papers. the more one must see oneself as always on stage. . When confronted with a more complicated reading of a text. less likely to venture a possibly “wrong” answer. how politely we respond to their journal entries. we often do” (18). the “hidden transcript” becomes public. Though silent in his presence. No. . the more conﬁned are those spaces for voicing one’s doubts about that ideology.with us privately. When a response “counted” in the classroom. no matter how carefully we arrange the desks in the classroom. “The higher one climbs the [academic] ladder.” As Miller writes. a former Lutheran minister currently teaching the Bible as literature. They had found themselves in a contact zone. never forget where they are. and fear and resentment emerge. James C. the Bible is not open to interpretation.” Although one student commented that in a community “a person can grow and learn without fear of being inhibited by the other members of the community. “The students . however. they again retreated to the comfortable. he touched a nerve that our analysis of more distant texts like Hamlet had not. perhaps they were hoping for our validation before oﬀering their “bizarre” theories to the rest of their peers in class. to challenge 438 Pedagogy . the more one must . to deconstruct the honors community. they argued vehemently. One student said that although he did have some questions now. ascribe to the dominant ideology. Later. Despite our eﬀorts to open the classroom. They don’t forget. the students were clearly distressed. Occasionally. as does Miller’s (1998: 14) perceptive question whether Paulo Freire’s liberatory pedagogy “leeches the power dynamic out of the teacher-student relationship. dispassionately presented various approaches to biblical texts. To modify Miller (1998: 17) slightly. when we explicitly asked for their reactions.” in reality the public forum seems to have been more inhibiting than she recognized. how open we are to disagreement. Some objected to what this authority had presented as multiple approaches to biblical scholarship. the students were less daring. Scott’s discussion in Domination and the Arts of Resistance of a “public transcript” and a “hidden transcript” (Miller 1998: 15) sheds light on this uniformity of opinion. a social space where the culture of authority diﬀered from what they had been given as the truth about themselves and the world. . reducing complexity to simplicity. and only the smallest diﬀerences of opinion were voiced in our classroom. He and others who squirmed under the challenge were demonstrating the “fear of education’s disruptive powers” (Miller 1998: 22). their portfolios. they spoke.
1996.” Field 64: 61–78. Boston: Bedford/St. 24.. Jr. 582–96. Although the students discomﬁted by biblical scholarship ultimately retreated to a reductive defensive position. “The Arts of Complicity: Pragmatism and the Culture of Schooling. we had fallen short. Maynard. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky.” Liberal Education. 1999. Pittsburgh. they did not have to remain under the constraints of “manufactured consent” (Miller 1998: 27). David. Mack. “Repositioning Ourselves in the Contact Zone. for a while they felt that they could challenge authority by speaking. Accessed on 8 February 2001 at search. “Honors Programs. Martin’s. Jules David. 1998. New York: Dutton. New York: Knopf. Pratt. Justice. “Opinion: ‘Contact Zones’ and English Studies. We have perhaps laid the groundwork for their future grapplings with power. van Slyck. “Wound. 1994. The Dollmaker’s Ghost.asp?an=9707290082&db=aph. Mary Louise. However. ———. Pa. 1992.” In Wrecking Crew. our experiment showed us that occasionally glimpses of the contact zone can disrupt the usual.” College English 61: 10–28.” College English 56: 163–69. Patricia. Paul F. Works Cited for From the Classroom 439 . 2001.” Liberal Education.asp?an=9608042123&db=aph. Young.” College English 59: 149–69.com/direct. ed. Conn.our students to think beyond their identities. 1995. Phyllis. 2002.epnet. “Reading Larry Levis. 1981. Accessed on 8 February 2001 at search.” In Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. 1997. Richard E. The critique that Scott and Miller oﬀer suggests that we usually will. 11. Levis. 1971. Larry. Works Cited for From the Classroom Bizzell. Haas. Miller. Art As Evidence: Writings on Art and Material Culture. “Fault Lines in the Contact Zone. 1994. “These Things Called Honors Programs. “Arts of the Contact Zone. Donald.: University of Pittsburgh Press. 5th ed.epnet. Prown.” College English 56: 389–408.: Yale University Press. “Sadness. New Haven.com/direct.” In New and Selected Poems. ———.