7.1 Review Teaching/Writing in Thirdspaces

Teaching/Writing in Thirdspaces: The Studio Approach - Rhonda C. Grego and Nancy S. Thompson

Reviewed by Vanessa Cozza

Perhaps writing centers, writing courses, and tutors are simply not enough to help students from various disciplines become members of the academic community. In Rhonda C. Grego and Nancy S. Thompson’s Teaching/Writing in Thirdspaces: The Studio Approach, they offer educators an “outside-but-alongside” method to help students succeed in their writing courses, and at the same time, manage the struggles of college life. Grego and Thompson’s journey begins with an important question: “Could there be a systematic approach to helping student writers that would also help us to pursue further understanding of composition’s work?” (5). This important issue directs the reader to learn more about Grego and Thompson’s experiences with implementing, what they have termed, the “Writing Studio” in higher education. Their purpose is to not only share what they have learned in using the studio approach since the early 1990s, but also to inspire both novice and experienced teachers in launching a similar programs in their schools.

Grego and Thompson initiated the first Writing Studio in 1992 at the University of South Carolina. The studio consisted of students who were enrolled in first-year writing, involved in undergraduate research pertaining to their field of study, “or [were a part of] any course or academic activity that [required] writing or communication assignments” (7). Meeting in small groups throughout the semester, students brought writing assignments to obtain feedback and develop their projects further. With guidance from an experienced teacher or group leader who facilitated discussion and offered help when he or she thought it necessary, students were able to share their work, ask questions, and contribute to the ongoing conversations. Although the studio seems similar to writing center pedagogy, after reading Grego and Thompson’s book, teachers will discover how the Writing Studio can contribute more than just assisting students with their writing needs.

Divided into four chapters, the text’s clarity and readability allows the reader to easily follow from the first two chapters dedicated in establishing a theoretical framework to the last two chapters aimed at providing an application of the theory and concrete examples of studio in progress. With this organizational pattern, Chapters 1 and 2 give the reader a clear sense of Grego and Thompson’s philosophy and reasons for creating the Writing Studio in the first place. Most importantly, they wanted to find an alternative approach to the traditional methods of existing writing courses. Moreover, Chapters 3 and 4 illustrate vividly how the Writing Studio works; its accomplishments, as well as its drawbacks; and its effects on students, teachers, and administrators. In the first chapter, Grego and Thompson “argue for increased attention to the ‘institution,’” particularly focusing on power relations that exist in higher education, which affect “composition in general and those programs within which we have initiated Studio-based program designs” (22). Drawing from the works of other scholars such as Doreen Massey’s “Power Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place,” Grego and Thompson’s arguments are well-versed in the current discussion surrounding first-year writing. Their analysis in this chapter clearly demonstrates the need for educators to examine the places and spaces where students live and work, and how those places and spaces affect their lives.

Whereas Chapter 1 presents the concept of place and space and its implications on academics, in the second chapter, Grego and Thompson further explain the idea of “thirdspace.” While other spaces include students’ coursework, involvement in the classroom, and place in the institution, the Writing Studio becomes a thirdspace. Similar to their approach in the first chapter, Grego and Thompson remain consistent with their use of Massey’s work, highlighting how her ideas, as well as other theorists', “have helped [them] better understand composition’s position in the institutional hierarchy of academic life and the ways in which the ‘thirdspace’ nature of Studio works for change within this hierarchy” (22). This thirdspace allows students the opportunity to express their emotions regarding their courses and examine their position in the institutional hierarchy that affects them. At this point, through Grego and Thompson’s analysis, the reader begins to understand how the studio becomes more than just a place and/or space for students to improve their writing. The Writing Studio shapes how students think and talk about writing, as well as how they view their place in the university.

The analytical framework developed in the first two chapters clearly sets the path for Chapters 3 and 4; before reading first-account entries by students and teachers about their experiences with the Writing Studio, the reader has gained valuable insight into the theory behind the use of studio in higher education. In Chapter 3, Grego and Thompson explore how the Writing Studio challenged the relationship between student writers, advanced knowledge, and knowledge construction, as well as the role institutional hierarchy played in these areas. Their descriptions of the studio operating in two different time periods at the University of South Carolina (USC), and at Benedict College, demonstrate how the program impacted both students' and teachers’ awareness of writing and composition pedagogies. Furthermore, Grego and Thompson stress the value of collaboration between teachers and group leaders in Chapter 4. These interactions reveal their thoughts about the Writing Studio’s effectiveness in educational institutions.

Finally, Grego and Thompson conclude that the studio approach has provided another gateway to learning for various student populations. The studio has also challenged the traditional institutional hierarchy by having students become more aware of their surroundings, as well as having educators examine their attitudes toward first-year writing pedagogy. They also speculate the future of the Writing Studio in higher education, hoping that others will feel inspiration to bring change where necessary in their institutional places and spaces. Based on Grego and Thompson’s experiences and conclusions, the reader is left questioning whether the studio approach will either advance student learning or complicate the institution’s expectations. Regardless, they argue for educators to become more conscious of “different compositional situations,” of causes “that influence the very different shapes and relationships within writing programs,” and of “ways in which these complex factors might bring us to a rhetoric of student writing that is respectful of those exigencies” (221). This book is highly recommended for educators who are seeking ways to improve their pedagogical approaches in writing courses, and help students succeed in their coursework and college life.