I used to be a pretty black and white person. I felt strongly about how most things "should" be done, how people "should" live, right/wrong, good/bad, were all pretty clear to me. I was pretty young and I was very sure of things. Over time I have learned that there can be many "right" ways to do something, that people usually have a good reason for the choices they make, and that right/wrong and good/bad are pretty subjective. One of my favorite sayings now is, "Don't should on me."
All that to say that I am delighted by the two articles we read this week. Both of them took existing ideas about things and said, "Let's look at it this way." Harris proposes that rather than approaching our students with an attitude of converting them to our "language," we acknowledge the value of the multitude of languages the students already participate in and simply add the language of the university to their experience. Winsor suggests that technical work and technical writing are mutually dependent rather than isolated events, and that all writing, even scribbles on post-it-notes, can be considered a factor in invention.
This is a beautiful aspect of academic dialogue; just when someone espouses a theory that makes perfect sense and everyone is applauding, someone else steps up and says, "Let's think about it another way." All of these challenges to the status quo are what keeps us on our toes, keeps us considering new possibilities, and makes us better students and teachers. Anytime someone draws a line in the sand and says, "This is the way it is. This is the way is should to be," we need to be cautious. Rarely is only one way the right way. Rarely are absolutes a good thing. Let's keep our hearts and minds open so that we will always be willing to consider a new way of thinking or doing things. And let's be especially careful not to "should" on anyone.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Social Activisim in Composition
I am intrigued by Berlin's statement that, "A rhetoric can never be innocent, can never be a disinterested arbiter of the ideological claims of others because it is always already serving certain ideological claims." There has been some discussion in both of my classes regarding our social responsibility as teachers of composition, and just how far should we go in trying to inspire our students' social consciousness. According to Berlin, there is no way to escape the ideological nature of rhetoric, and I agree with him to a certain extent. Anytime anyone attempts to communicate with someone else, either through speaking or writing, they are inevitably communicating from the perspective of their own ideology.
Even though rhetoric may automatically be considered ideological, I do not feel a responsibility to use my classroom as a platform from which to inspire my students to activism. I do feel, however, that through the composition and discussion experience of the English classroom students' minds, perspective, and world view will be broadened. I expect to fully participate in this process with, "Think about it this way..." prompts, and by creating a classroom environment that facilitates the sharing of thoughts and ideas. That is as far as I plan to go, however, and I am okay with that. I think that each teacher has to decide for themselves to what extent they want to use their classroom socially or culturally.
Even though rhetoric may automatically be considered ideological, I do not feel a responsibility to use my classroom as a platform from which to inspire my students to activism. I do feel, however, that through the composition and discussion experience of the English classroom students' minds, perspective, and world view will be broadened. I expect to fully participate in this process with, "Think about it this way..." prompts, and by creating a classroom environment that facilitates the sharing of thoughts and ideas. That is as far as I plan to go, however, and I am okay with that. I think that each teacher has to decide for themselves to what extent they want to use their classroom socially or culturally.
Friday, October 8, 2010
What to do, what not to do!
We've pretty much all agreed by now that when it comes to teaching composition, the system is either broken or in need of repair. At worst, the "business as usual" style of teaching writing turns students off writing completely, and at best, a few students emerge unscathed, but in reality most survive with minimal writing skills and a bad taste in their mouth. So what can we do about it? It's not likely that we can change the system, not anytime soon at least, but we can make a change - one class, even one student at a time, and both Hartwell and Bruffee show us how.
Hartwell hammers home the message that standard ways of teaching grammar are not only ineffective in teaching grammar but equally ineffective in teaching writing. Bruffee stresses the need for collaborative learning and emphasizes the effectiveness of teaching writing this way. Dr. Kemp echoes both men when he tells us that the only real way for students to learn how to write well (and even learn a little grammar along the way), and maybe even like it a little, is through peer review. And not just any ole' peer review, but one that does not make finding errors the priority.
So there we have it. Not only do we know what we DO NOT want to do in our classrooms, we are actually getting a better idea of what we DO want to do. I love the practicality of this. Theory is great, but it is empty without corresponding practical application, and these articles, and our class discussions, are equipping us not only with a sense of righteous indignation, but also real tools we can use to construct our classrooms in a way that fits each of our own chosen paradigm.
Hartwell hammers home the message that standard ways of teaching grammar are not only ineffective in teaching grammar but equally ineffective in teaching writing. Bruffee stresses the need for collaborative learning and emphasizes the effectiveness of teaching writing this way. Dr. Kemp echoes both men when he tells us that the only real way for students to learn how to write well (and even learn a little grammar along the way), and maybe even like it a little, is through peer review. And not just any ole' peer review, but one that does not make finding errors the priority.
So there we have it. Not only do we know what we DO NOT want to do in our classrooms, we are actually getting a better idea of what we DO want to do. I love the practicality of this. Theory is great, but it is empty without corresponding practical application, and these articles, and our class discussions, are equipping us not only with a sense of righteous indignation, but also real tools we can use to construct our classrooms in a way that fits each of our own chosen paradigm.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Grader Frustration
The information that Hairston gives regarding the writing process, including how the brain works during this process, contributes to the idea of other authors we have read that writing is messy and non-linear. Emotionally, romantically(?), the idea of focusing on the process rather than the product appeals to me. Let's all get together, hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and let the writing flow, right? I love it, I really do. But, if you ascribe to the notion that good writing is at least partially defined by its ability to communicate effectively to its intended audience, then some attention has to be paid to the end product. Teaching proper grammar is vital to a student's ability to create good writing. Their reader has to be able to make sense of it all, and that isn't going to happen if their grammar is a mess. This little reality check takes me back to the taxonomy of teaching. As most of us agreed in class, some combination of the taxonomy is the preferred way to teach writing.
Yet, as we read these articles, and have these discussions, about preferred ways to teach writing, my frustration with grading for 1301 increases. We can be as kind and gentle as we like when giving students our comments, but the fact is we are often sending them back papers that are bleeding red with all of the grammar mistakes. The emphasis is on finding errors whether we like it or not. However, I do find comfort in knowing that, even within the highly structured environment of teaching 1301 & 1302, teachers have some opportunity to supplement the outlined instruction with things like free writing. They can also convey their own attitude regarding the importance of the process while teaching students to create a final product that will communicate their point effectively. They may not be holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but maybe at least some of the students will discover the beauty of the messy process called writing.
Yet, as we read these articles, and have these discussions, about preferred ways to teach writing, my frustration with grading for 1301 increases. We can be as kind and gentle as we like when giving students our comments, but the fact is we are often sending them back papers that are bleeding red with all of the grammar mistakes. The emphasis is on finding errors whether we like it or not. However, I do find comfort in knowing that, even within the highly structured environment of teaching 1301 & 1302, teachers have some opportunity to supplement the outlined instruction with things like free writing. They can also convey their own attitude regarding the importance of the process while teaching students to create a final product that will communicate their point effectively. They may not be holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but maybe at least some of the students will discover the beauty of the messy process called writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)