Using Contact Zone Concepts to Teach Critical Autoethnography to Multilingual Writers in Foundational Composition

The Critical Autoethnography Project

Multilingual composition scholars and writing program administrators should investigate their local contexts (Tardy 635). For me, this meant recognizing that the memoir narrative essay I was given at orientation was a prime candidate for getting a contact zone refresh. The memoir narrative essay assignment (First-Year Writing Program; see Appendix A) was originally developed for the “mainstream” sections of our writing program. We, the teachers of the EAL sections, received this curriculum with no updates or considerations for our students, so as I grappled with Canagarajah’s question, I recognized the opportunity and responsibility to redesign the memoir narrative essay assignment as a critical autoethnography project (see Appendix B).

Pratt describes an autoethnographic text as “a text in which people undertake to describe themselves in ways that engage with representations others have made of them” (35). David Seitz lauds the ethnography employed in his classroom for its ability to spark in students an understanding of power relations, cultures, and ethics as an agency-building text that teaches students to negotiate identity (220). Canagarajah advocates for multilingual writers to compose a critical autoethnography because “in reflecting on their multilingual, literate lives, students analyze the tensions between different language norms and literate practices, their strategies in negotiating them, their efforts for voice, and their trajectories of development. The exercise helps students value their experiences and learn from them” (30).

Though an autoethnography is not the greatest departure from a memoir, I think my example displays an instance of where small changes can have substantial impacts. While I understand Bizzell’s call for new pedagogies instead of revamped ones (460) and respect her suggestion, that can require a great deal of labor and/or resources that teachers might not have. As a graduate teaching associate, I had little say in our writing program's curriculum design or the ability to create my own. Nevertheless, as a teacher-scholar of multilingual writing, I recognized my duty to make some sort of curricular revision to support my students’ developing co-constitutive literacies and identities. Though my situation may not be generalizable, I share my experience and redesign from memoir to critical autoethnography to demonstrate working within one’s own context and resources, exemplifying that developing a contact zone classroom does not always require a complete overhaul of current conditions.

The Assignment Prompt

The first step in adapting the original assignment prompt was conducting a needs assessment (Key 116). It was important to rhetorically analyze the assignment prompt to highlight existing strengths and also note room for improvements, with special consideration of contact zone ideologies. This assignment prompt features both positives and negatives. For example, the language regarding purpose is conducive to agency-building and is accessible to multilingual writers: “This narrative is your chance to expand the world of your audience. Let them see your perspective.” Here, authors can understand why they are asked to write this type of personal text and it makes available the opportunity to share diverse viewpoints in a–hopefully–receptive space.

Some issues with this assignment prompt, however, are the paradoxically vague yet specific statements. In the first paragraph, the assignment calls for students to “write a memoir essay that tells a focused story with some kind of significance.” It would seem that the goal here, particularly when paired with the context of the rest of the paragraph calling for a singular instance in time, is to help students understand the limited scope of the assignment. The issue, however, is that it does not give any direction for how the story should be focused or significant, only that it needs to be both. Another command that appears well-intentioned but may be problematic in implementation is “organize your story effectively.” As this assignment prompt presumes to operate in its parent culture of US academic conventions, this “effective organization” is likely assumed to be a linear organization (see Kaplan). While a classroom of first-language English speakers may default to this style of organization, in a multicultural and multilingual classroom like the one for which this project was being redesigned, organizational constraints either need to be explicitly described so as to avoid any confusion or, better yet, the instructor needs to explain organization as being effective within a rhetorical situation, considering elements like audience, purpose, and genre. The original assignment prompt can be extolled for aligning with this more closely when describing that style and tone should be “best suited to your particular story and point.” These portions of the assignment prompt may seem minor, but it is important to analyze the messages conveyed in them to understand how students may perceive and perform their assignments.

Following this needs assessment of the original assignment prompt, I wrote a new assignment prompt that aligns with contact zone ideologies. The new project is born from the strengths of the original and attempts to innovatively update its weaknesses. The first modification to this assignment prompt is the addition of a definition section. The original assignment prompt does not define memoir. Although memoir is perhaps a more commonly known genre than critical autoethnography, definitions facilitate scope and expectations. Additionally, because critical autoethnography is a term that undergraduate multilingual first-year writing students have not likely encountered, a written definition that they can refer to throughout the project is useful.

The second paragraph of the updated assignment prompt has a similar function as the first paragraph of the original assignment prompt. The difference, however, is that it offers more culturally sensitive rhetoric. It balances requirements that are essential to conducting the project successfully with opportunities for creativity and uniqueness. Refer again to the opening statement of the original assignment prompt: “Write a memoir essay that tells a focused story with some kind of significance.” Now, compare that with the updated version: “For this assignment, you will design a critical autoethnography focusing on a story that is in some way meaningful to you and you feel is reflective of your identity.” The first update is the change in the verb from “write” to “design.” This follows Canagarajah’s (300) call for using this term instead and also helps to set up the project as multimodal. Additionally, it addresses the original assignment’s call for significance by enumerating that the story’s significance comes from its relation to identity. This is an important agency-building opportunity and also presents again the function of the critical autoethnography genre. The rest of the paragraph balances instruction and example with open-endedness so that multilingual writers, particularly those unfamiliar with the genre, do not feel blind in this experience and have the ability to personalize their project.

Moving on to the second paragraph of the updated assignment prompt, I created a section that does not exist in the original and is the largest departure from the original assignment prompt. Suggestions from contact zone literature presented earlier (Canagarajah 300; McCook) as well as from the Writing Studies field at-large encourage multimodality, and this project has easy entry points to designing diverse projects.

The updated assignment prompt uses the terminology “multimodal” to introduce students to the concept, defining it through examples of how multimodality may be employed. This assignment, though, as part of a writing class, does feature an explicit written requirement that is twofold. The first requirement is that students discuss in writing why they chose a particular identity to discuss and story to tell. The second requirement is that they also describe and discuss their design choices. The purpose behind these requirements is that it gives students an opportunity to debrief their project and then engage critical thinking and metacognition through rhetorical analysis and reflection. The final statement in this section is that students can include languages other than English in their assignment. This is to demonstrate a classroom environment that is accepting of diverse linguistic backgrounds and affirms students’ diverse linguistic identities. In order to facilitate universal understanding, though, in addition to any non-English texts the students produce, they must include an English translation, as English serves as the lingua franca of the course and it is a course designed to develop written communication skills in English.

The next section of the updated assignment prompt is included to make students aware of the public nature of the course. Since part of contact-zone-theory-based composition pedagogies is workshopping (Lu 478; Miller 130) and this can be a practice that students are unfamiliar with, it is important to let students know that the stories they share will be known not just by the teacher, but also by other students. This knowledge allows writers the opportunity to select a story and aspect of their identity that they feel comfortable sharing with these outside parties. This section also provides language encouraging students who feel uncomfortable with the assignment to come speak with the teacher. Letting students know that they have a safe space to communicate with their instructor is important for students processing their identities and navigating the course as a whole. This reinforces the idea of a tour guide teacher as it also helps students know that they have an advocate and confidant in their instructor.

Following this section, the assignment prompt features a bulleted list. A bulleted list also exists in the original assignment prompt. A strong aspect of a bulleted list is that it can succinctly summarize the assignment prompt for students. Within a multilingual context, this can be particularly helpful for students who may feel overwhelmed with the extensive prose offered earlier in the assignment prompt. It can further serve as a scaffolded checklist for students to refer to as they design their critical autoethnography. The updated assignment prompt’s list is condensed from the original one for brevity, clarity, and cultural sensitivity.

The “Audience and Purpose” section is included in both assignment prompts. This is an example of a section that did not require much change. The addressed audience–teacher and classmates–are the same. The updated assignment prompt, however, includes a theoretical and/or known audience. The decision to add this language is in an effort to help students see how their schoolwork can be used for purposes outside of the course in which they design it. In this vein, it shows students that the identity discussed in a critical autoethnography is not bound to this assignment alone, but that their identity is transcendent of the classroom. Again, this is an opportunity for students to build agency and transfer their knowledge.

The “Format” section also appears in both assignment prompts, but the updated version features some additions. The main addition is information regarding the multimodality of the project. To foster creativity, there is no limit to this format except that it be “in a multimodal, creative format that supports your rhetorical purpose.” The original formatting requirements are fairly prescriptive. Due to the constraints of the course being academic in nature, these prescriptive requirements are carried over into the updated assignment prompt, but restricted to only being necessary for the written component to develop academic formatting skills. The goal here, like the majority of the assignment, is to demonstrate to students that there will likely always be formal academic assignments and regulations, but whenever possible, they should take opportunities to assume agency in their work.

There are a couple other rhetorically significant decisions in the updated assignment prompt. For example, the updated assignment prompt is written in first person. This decision is one that will hopefully help reduce the barriers between the instructor and students. In creating an assignment that can be stressful due to its personal nature, students need to feel like their instructor is not only available, but also approachable. While writing in first person only barely opens that door, it is hopefully a step in the right direction. Readers of the original assignment prompt will also likely notice that the reflection component has been removed in the updated assignment. Since a goal of a contact zone classroom is fostering reflection that is ongoing, there would likely already be reflective opportunities in place such as journaling and discussion, so requiring it here may seem redundant, especially when paired with the metacognitive tasks students are asked to complete earlier in the prompt. This aspect, though, like the entire assignment prompt, is one that can be modified according to the instructor’s preferences and course design.