Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke: Pedagogical Performances of Class, Gender, and Sexuality

By: Gibson, Marinara, and Meem

After reading the first section of the article titled Bi: Playing with fixed identities, I had mixed emotions. I enjoyed her anecdotes, especially the Tinker Bell reference. I was suprised her composition class was unwilling to read Rich’s “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-vision.” However, maybe I was distracted reading this section, but I kept waiting for this discussion, albeit an important one, to turn towards writing. I may have missed the part where she discusses voice and finding yourself in your writing, but I felt like this section was a bit wordy, a bit opinionated, and a bit overwhelming. I tried to understand her points, but I kept getting lost in my own question of “Where is this going?”.

I enjoyed the second section more. I found the author’s anecdote about her male colleague who called her “bossy” very interesting. I originally read it as an annoyed colleague and less as a sexuality issue. I did not view him as challenging her the only way he knew how; however, I see that now. The author discusses the difference between butch and femme identities, stating that butch is considered higher class than femme. This section left me wondering though. She discusses that because of her open “butchness” that she receives a certain attention, such as students coming out to her or asking for advice, colleagues wanting to engage in debates about gender and sexuality, and being asked to participate on different panels. I couldn’t decide how she felt about this. As I read it, I felt like she was offended that her butchness brought this out in the people in her life. However, at the same time, she declares that she is going to continue to “own” who she is.

I also enjoyed the following section titled Bar Dyke. I felt that this section was the easiest to understand. After reading excerpts from the author’s dossier, I was shocked and horrified at the University’s response. I was upset to read that the university wanted her to conform more to identifying with the scholars and her colleagues, more so than her students. I also found it interesting that Dr. Gatekeeper told her that basically it didn’t matter if she changed it or not, she was still highly perceived. Why bother addressing it at all then, especially when it was pure academic discomfort on their part rather than something she did wrong? I think this speaks to the power struggle we discussed in earlier classes and how that goes hand in hand with people's comfort levels.

Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment

By Kathleen Blake Yancey

This article opens up by addressing an overview of the three waves of writing assessment: Objective tests, holistically scored essays, and portfolio assessments, where we reside today. The history of the first wave of assessment came from aligning our assessments with the standards, as a way to place and move students to different courses. However, most of these objective tests did not include writing samples, posing a unique concern about where to place these students and whose responsibility was it. The second wave addressed the concerns of validity and reliability, which I found very interesting. It’s true that we need to find trustworthy ways to assess writing, in correlation to being consistent. The third wave of writing assessment addressed the needs for portfolio writing. The question of how to grade these portfolios came up. According to the text, “community standards are developed, and through these standards that fairer grades can be derived. Moreover, they claim, this process enables us to refine responding skills that can be taken back to the classroom. This model of assessment, then, functions three ways: (1) as a sorting mechanism (pass-fail); (2) as a check on practice; (3) as a means of faculty development” (493). This part of the text stood out to me as a teacher because I am constantly wondering if I am assessing my students correctly. I can grade them based off of if they are practicing what I teach, but how do you assess other areas. I am constantly voicing my opinion for a communal standard that we can relate back to. I graded my districts honors entrance essays, and went to the meeting with the assumption that I would be instructed on what makes for a high scoring paper and what doesn’t. Instead, I was thrown a rubric and told to Go. I would love to see more of collaboration in deciding on writing assessment standards.