Since I started taking TC classes in January, every time I talk to someone who's been in the program a while and I mention teaching ENGL 1301 they tell me the same thing, "Don't base your opinion of teaching on 1301 or you might give up on teaching all together. It's terrible!" I heard this so often that I became determined NOT to let teaching 1301 be a negative experience for either me or the students. I'm not teaching this semester, just grading, but I also came to grading with the intention to keep a positive attitude towards the students. However, I have experienced some frustration, and amazement, at the frequency and consistency of mistakes in virtually everything I am grading. This frustration peaked one evening when I confirmed that both my 16 year old son and 11 year old grandson know that periods and commas go inside quotes, while most of the freshmen I am grading do not.
So, I was grateful for Shaughnessy's introduction to Errors and Expectations, especially when she states, "...BW students write the way they do, not because they are slow or non-verbal, indifferent to or incapable of academic excellence, but because they are beginners and must, like all beginners, learn by making mistakes" (p.390). I also appreciated Dr. Kemp's gracious tone as he urged us not to judge our freshmen too harshly. I think it is important to remember that our freshmen are not stupid, just beginners. It doesn't matter what we think they "should" know or do, or how frustrated we may get with the "system" that allowed these students to come to college so ill prepared. The fact is they are here and, to a certain extent, their fate is in our hands.
Let us be nurturing rather than avenging angels!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
How Do We "Really" Teach Composition?
I empathize with Crowley's frustration with the fact that we tend to teach composition in a way that is contradictory to the natural writing process. From class discussions, and personal conversations I've had with others in our program, it seems to me that most of us share a similar frustration. We want to do so much more. We want the teaching and writing process to be more personal, more messy, more Macrorieian. Yet, it seems that the practicality of teaching so many students so many things in such a short time limits our ability to do this. It appears necessary that every instructor of ENGL 1301 be using the same format, and be doing the same thing at the same time for the "system" to work. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The "system" accomplishes many goals for students and instructors alike. Still, it leaves us sharing Crowley's and Macrorie's frustration. What about the messy stuff, the heart stuff, the "real" writing?
I have a friend who is in the TC PhD program. After teaching ENGL 1301 and 1302 numerous times, she taught ENGL 3365 this summer, and she was thrilled with the experience of getting to teach her own class her own way. It reinvigorated her love of teaching, and helped her remember why she was doing this in the first place. It seems teaching basic English classes in a rather scripted way is part of the process of paying our dues until we get far enough along that we can "really" teach. The danger here is that the distaste students often already have for English classes just gets reinforced by this system, and that some grad students may get permanently turned off from teaching by it. How can we salvage the necessary evil of mass producing basic English classes? By bringing the personal, individual element to our classrooms.
Maybe we are constrained by the limits of the "system," but the way we decide to implement our structured instruction is up to us. Perhaps we can use Macrorie's free writing exercises to give our students a taste of true self expression. Maybe we can plant seeds of thought regarding invention during our discussions and exercises. We have the ability to implement or supplement our instruction with skills, practices, and discussions that reflect the things we think are most important to the writing and learning process. This is our basic training, and once we make it through the obstacle course, we can build further upon what we've learned here and apply it to our classes when we get to "really" teach.
I have a friend who is in the TC PhD program. After teaching ENGL 1301 and 1302 numerous times, she taught ENGL 3365 this summer, and she was thrilled with the experience of getting to teach her own class her own way. It reinvigorated her love of teaching, and helped her remember why she was doing this in the first place. It seems teaching basic English classes in a rather scripted way is part of the process of paying our dues until we get far enough along that we can "really" teach. The danger here is that the distaste students often already have for English classes just gets reinforced by this system, and that some grad students may get permanently turned off from teaching by it. How can we salvage the necessary evil of mass producing basic English classes? By bringing the personal, individual element to our classrooms.
Maybe we are constrained by the limits of the "system," but the way we decide to implement our structured instruction is up to us. Perhaps we can use Macrorie's free writing exercises to give our students a taste of true self expression. Maybe we can plant seeds of thought regarding invention during our discussions and exercises. We have the ability to implement or supplement our instruction with skills, practices, and discussions that reflect the things we think are most important to the writing and learning process. This is our basic training, and once we make it through the obstacle course, we can build further upon what we've learned here and apply it to our classes when we get to "really" teach.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Reflection vs. Revolution
William Riley Parker and Albert R. Kitzhaber have something in common - they both feel that the way we teach English composition, and university English departments in general, need an overhaul. Where they differ is that Parker bases his ideas on the past, while Kitzhaber is more forward thinking. Though both men assess the situation from a specific point of view, Parker spends a great deal of time lamenting that we have forgotten our roots, while Kitzhaber focuses more on productive possibilities for change. Kitzhaber's blow by blow analysis of the English department situation is relevant even today, which could be a bit discouraging since this reinforces his prediction that the need for radical and sweeping reforms may continue to be ignored. However, after detailing the main issues in college and university English departments across the nation, such as, "confusion in purpose, content, and organization; inexpert teaching; poor textbooks," his analysis of what is wrong with the way English composition is being taught automatically provides us with possible solutions for these problems.
Overall, Parker leaves us with a feeling of chastisement and a sense of hopelessness, yet Kitzhaber provides us with a productive analysis and something to consider as we become integrated into the decision making process in our respective English departments. From how we choose to teach our own classes, to our willingness to try new teaching techniques, we can be an influence for positive change in the way English composition is taught and how our departments are run. To do so, we must acknowledge our past, but continue looking toward the future.
Overall, Parker leaves us with a feeling of chastisement and a sense of hopelessness, yet Kitzhaber provides us with a productive analysis and something to consider as we become integrated into the decision making process in our respective English departments. From how we choose to teach our own classes, to our willingness to try new teaching techniques, we can be an influence for positive change in the way English composition is taught and how our departments are run. To do so, we must acknowledge our past, but continue looking toward the future.
Friday, September 3, 2010
How Shall I Teach... Let Me Count The Ways
Thinking toward the possibility of teaching next semester, I am very interested in the Taxonomy of Instructional Emphasis that was presented in class on Thursday. I came to college with the idea of being a teacher, so along the way I have critiqued every instructor I have had regarding their effectiveness, and what I could glean from them in the way of "to do" and "not to do" when I am a teacher. Most were forgettable, a few very memorable, and a few others incredibly bad. So, I have spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of teacher I want to be, and I use the word teacher rather than instructor because I have had many instructors who didn't know the first thing about teaching.
Looking at the Taxonomy of Instructional Emphasis, it would be easy to just toss aside the traditionalist or formal approach as antiquated and designed primarily for lazy teachers. As well, it would be easy to embrace the expressive or romantic instructional method as validation for the students’ thoughts and feelings and as a kind of slap in the face for the traditionalists. I would probably have leaned toward the romantic emphasis when I first started college. I viewed the prospect of reading students’ papers, and being privy to their thoughts and feelings, as a privilege and I felt quite romantic about it. Though I still anticipate this experience as a privileged one, time and knowledge have dimmed the romantic glow a bit.
As Dr. Kemp stated, most effective writers and writing teachers employ aspects of all four emphases, and I think this is a very reasonable approach to teaching. This combination approach seems especially desirable when considering ways to keep students’ interest, presenting materials in a stimulating and effective way, and providing for assessment methods that actually do assess the students’ individual progress and not just to determine a grade. A balanced approach that applies each instructional emphasis as appropriate for the particular class, the individual student, and the specific situation seems to be the wisest, and a little romance couldn't hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)