In providing responses to this week's readings, I would like you to consider the movement toward social notions of discourse in composition and literacy studies. In your view, what are the strengths and limitations of conceiving discourse and literacy from a "social" perspective? What implications does viewing reading and writing as social activities have for writing instruction? How would you begin to imagine a community literacy project that takes seriously the social nature of discourse?
You might also want to reflect on some of the political implications connected with the radical approaches to composition discussed in Chapter 2 and critical literacy in Grabill's article. For those who are interested in helping students link the activities of literacy to the work of social change, how might connecting students with a local community outside of the classroom provide opportunities for using literacy to make a real difference in the lives of others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Literacy: A Matter of Life and Death (a strange response, I apologize in advance)
As it would seem appropriate in a discussion about discourse outside the classroom, I want to start with a personal aside, outside of the text. This summer, I discovered St. Aloysius, a former orphanage and current social services agency (http://www.stalsorphanage.org/). They freely admit that there role is one of a “last resort” for students who can’t make it in other schools due to mental or behavioral problems. I was there with a client in an observing role. I joined the students to listen to a speech by Hamilton County Coroner Dr. O'dell Owens. He said (paraphrased): “Become educated. If you don’t, I’ll have to pick up your dead body.” Dr. Owens’ statistics and images of body bags (from his powerpoint presentation) had these “bad seed” students riveted to their seats and I was shaken, my lip quivering in awe. When he finished, there were few questions. He left the room and there was an odd silence. Students and teachers returned to their classrooms.
I feel like a great opportunity was lost. I don’t know what happened in the classrooms after his talk, but I wanted more. I wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk to Dr. Owens. I wanted to talk to every student and see if they felt the same way I did.
Maybe we aren’t the only one who should question how we should teach literacy. Maybe we should ask the students themselves. Maybe this seed of thought can be related to a community literacy project that takes seriously the social nature of discourse.
I found that Grabill’s article was too critical of programs focusing on “basic skills” and related to getting a GED. Conceiving discourse and literacy from a "social" perspective fosters empowerment. The limitations aren’t related to the concept, but the execution of doing so. One area I want to highlight/a key concept was the following quote from Weisser’s “The Freireistas” section: “the goal of most courses in public writing is not just to facilitate students’ interactions with a specific sphere or issue, but to help students transform themselves into active, critical participants in democratic society.” In addition, when paraphrasing Freire, Weisser states: “the teacher and student work together, through discourse, to recognize and change the social conditions that prevent people from realizing their full humanity.”
A Google search reaffirms this posts’ title, with the following top result: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070723160224.htm (okay, it’s health literacy, but it still counts)
I wonder was I the only one who missed out on the fact there was a classroom revolution in the ‘60s. Perhaps I relied too heavily on Bob Dylan to keep me appraised. I should have known better - after all, he was one of the many to tune in, turn on and drop out; but things were a changin’ in the English curriculum and the Dartmouth Seminar sparked a debate on the benefits of a teacher-centered versus student-centered environment.
Growing interest led to some new thinking and the emergence of a number of innovations including cognitivism, expressivism, and collaboration that extends beyond the classroom and in to the community. The text highlights some of the pros and cons of the models of which the most damaging and least apparent may be the discourse itself. If Greg Myers’ view that “knowledge is defined by those who control the discourse” (46) is correct, then recognizing the phenomenon is the best possible first step to changing it. The newness of community literacy can work for or against it. Without a benchmark to consult, pitfalls are more likely and harder to avoid. On the other hand, one gets to write the script. Suitable projects have to be found and students prepped. While Bruffee “regards knowledge as social and communal in nature” (21), does it constitute enough to send students into the community? Perhaps they need something beyond a desire to do good things, like a strong foundation in literacy and communication skills, to make an effective contribute. On the other hand, if Tompkins’ hypotheses that the classroom is a microcosm of the world, then it would follow that students get everything they need within that environment.
The answer my friend … like the self-described Dylan … is still becoming.
As with all issues, there are strengths and limitations of conceiving discourse and literacy from a “social” perspective. Each student learns and excels in different manners. When I was in high school (so long ago) we had some of the smartest people I’ve ever met graduating at the top of our class. Two of them received presidential scholarships from NKU. One gentleman did well in high school, but he always had problems because everything was so structured. The other gentlemen excelled in high school and loved the structure of the classroom environment. Once we were in college, the gentlemen who we all thought would cure cancer one day, dropped out after one semester because he could handle not having the structure that he needed to succeed. So, I don’t have to tell you that the gentlemen who tried to break free of the structure graduated and went on to receive his MBA. That’s how I see taking discourse & literacy from a social perspective. When you’re in a social setting you’re more relaxed there is less structure but it can be productive. However, you have some people how can not function unless they have structure. It’s similar to writers – some write by making an outline first and planning every step of their thought process – others will just think of an idea & starting putting it to paper without any direction.
I’ve always viewed reading & writing as social activities to an extent. I love to read to my sister and my nephews. And when I write I’m always passing it along to someone to review or I’ll read it out loud to whomever has the misfortune of being in the room at the time. I think having input helps the process and makes the writer grow in ways that being solitary would not be possible. In my experiences, student who collaborate and get feedback (whether from peers or teachers) seem to take more away from the experience.
A good community project (in my mind, anyway) would be to go to a town hall meeting and study how discourse is used by the government and the citizens who are trying to get their voice heard. Town Halls are more of a social atmosphere that would be interesting to research why kind of discourse each side uses in order to present their side of whatever topic is being discussed.
As humans, I believe we all have a need to communicate with another. I think this idea was touched upon in chapter 1 of the reading when Chomsky’s notions of how humans were innately “hard-wired” for language were shared. Humans need to bond with another and communication and language certainly allow us to do such.
I mean, what is the point of writing something, if it is never going to be shared or read by another? If you think about it, even diary entries, though secretive and personal, serve as a means of communicating to others when found or stumbled upon years later. Sure, the teenage girl who scribbles in her diary may not want her younger brother (or {gasp} her mother) snooping through such writings, but I would bet that she would have some hidden desire that it be discovered years, maybe decades, later by some individual who then reads about her life. That girl wants to communicate with someone, even if it does take a generation or more to do so.
In that context, I do see language (or writing) as a tool, a device, a venue to transmit ideas and feelings and as a way that allows us to “grow” as humans. To simply see writing as a task or as a subject is limiting and constricting to the creative thought in each of us. All too often I run across disinterested students in the schools I have taught. These students have been silenced and forced to “practice” literary strategies which they see as having no purpose or use to themselves. They “play the game of school” but are turned off by the systematic traditionalists who often run the classrooms. The students see no value for such skills and think to themselves (or sometimes aloud to others): “When am I ever going to use this?”
It is that question that should force the educational system to revamp its own structure. A huge strength of the social perspective is the recognition of an education firsthand. By embracing a more social perspective, schools could teach students the necessary skills while providing an authentic purpose for those students. Students wouldn’t have to be told why such a skill was important; they would experience the value immediately. Thus, under this notion, students would be more willing to learn and grow and better themselves because they would see the value of their own education.
I think that the overall drift of composition and literacy studies toward a social emphasis is a good idea though I do think that there is one major drawback to it.
Clearly, the social emphasis to composition pedagogy creates a more inclusive classroom environment that enables students to contribute to their own learning experiences. Through the encouragement of students to draw upon their own life experiences, the barriers that any one type of ideology that would otherwise dominate the classroom can fall away.
I wonder how this impacts the creation of knowledge in the field as a whole though. What I mean (and I’m not being critical of the social emphasis at all, I’m just not sure how to get around this criticism) is that if you decentralize the method of teaching each group of students to the authority of the teacher insofar as he or she is allowed academic governance over that classroom, won’t the field inevitably start to fragment? I know that this is sort of a “Chicken Little” response that is probably indicative of some group during every time of change to a field, but how does the field as a whole deal with this? If every student (and, by extension then, every classroom) should be taught in a unique way (which is essentially what we are saying, right?) then isn’t the idea of what it means to “teach” someone something inherently undermined somehow?
The top down approach to teaching a topic, while inherently not democratic, does at least offer the stability of some sort of fractal hierarchy at least and so the creation and transmission of knowledge in a field is solidified and maintained, but busting that model open and creating lots of techniques spread across a wide field of universities and projects seems like it would create millions of little philosophies of pedagogy rather than one overarching model.
It seems as though I’ve talked more about my ‘one drawback’ here than I have about the pros of social-minded composition teaching, but I really do think that tailoring classrooms toward individual communities is a GOOD thing and probably the only real road forward. My only concern is that if a central, theoretical base of knowledge for the field is not maintained that the field of composition would be seen even more as a ‘vocational’ field and less of an academic pursuit.
Jill - Dr. Owens is probably the single best speaker I've ever heard anywhere. Powerful stuff there.
Some of the strengths of conceiving discourse and literacy from a social" perspective might be that discourse and literacy will be community based and directed toward the people it will affect. Collaboration within a diverse group of people may facilitate a wider perspective. New perspectives could shape new ideas and concepts that allow change. However the limitations might be that through collaboration an end goal may not be reached. As evidenced at the Dartmouth Seminar, sometimes agreements are elusive. There are also caveats if agreements are reached though. In reaching consensus, Meyer warns, “some interests are being silenced.”
Freire’s connection “between public discourse, civic action, and the educational systems of a society inextricably bound up in each other” gives the educator and writer a jumping off point. If participants view literacy from a social point of view they may be more likely to get involved. It’s important for people, especially students, to understand why they’re doing something. Making the social connection helps fill in some gaps. Viewing reading and writing as a social activity may also help the teacher be viewed less as a controller and more of facilitator to students. Friere’s analogy of “banking” education really struck a chord with me. I never really thought of it as “negating education as a process of inquiry” but in some situations where there is a diverse student body or if you’re working with students that really don’t want to learn but take the class because it’s required, it’s hard not to have some type of authority figure in the classroom. I’ve taught in classrooms where students had rivals or personality conflicts with other students and have used collaborative and cooperative exercises. It can be quite difficult.
Connecting students with a local community outside of the classroom could provide opportunities for using literacy to make a difference in the lives of others by building community and dispelling prejudice. The reference in the Grabil article to Flower’s idea that literacy is something that cannot be “possessed” but “are situated actions geared toward solving problems” seems to be a direction that if applied in the right environment could really change not only reading and writing but also the community and beyond as well.
My understanding of Weisser’s explanation of the three notions of discourse are as follows: cognitivists reject the traditional ways of teaching and teachers should only intervene in the student’s writing practice – not try to control or direct them; expressivists advocate abandoning teacher authority and having student-centered classrooms that give students the freedom for self-development; social constructionists believe that writing is a social act and social interaction is necessary for the generation of knowledge. Social construction work claims that users are those who understand to dynamics of the community to whom they are writing, and that is what makes them effective. It is not because they had a teacher directing them how to write or because they were innately aware of certain knowledge. It is the community that influences the values and construction of the written product.
I think about the generational changes in our society as reflective of this composition shift. During a workforce development workshop that I attended a few months back, the presenter discussed the characteristics of the Millennials (a.k.a. Generation Y). Millennials were born somewhere between 1978 and 1995, are children of Baby Boomers, and are the largest generation (75 million) after the Boomers (80 million). Characteristics that define Millennials include hopeful, diverse, inclusive, global-, civic- and community-minded, pulling together, and service oriented. Millennials at work are collaborative, resourceful, and innovative; they seek to make a difference; and they want to produce something worthwhile. Millennials are collective in nature – they value the success of the whole community and are not as self-indulgent as previous generations.
I think these are the same type of characteristics needed of people in a classroom who are discussing the idea of using writing to effect social change. Social change does not happen through one person; it requires an entire community to rally around an important issue and work together to achieve the desired results. Therefore, a community literacy project would require a great deal of collaboration, collective discourse, and creativity.
Week Three
When I initially began thinking about literacy in this course’s context, I have to admit that I did not fully understand the larger picture as to how discourse could be taught in a traditional vs. nontraditional manner. I believe my naïve approach is largely due to the home I grew up in; my parents were teachers, grandparents were administrators/teachers, aunts, uncles, etc. Then my only sibling, my older sister, became a teacher and married a principal. Continuing your education after high school was not a question, and essentially, your career was predetermined. This is not to say my parents are bad people, they are wonderful people who are loving and have always been nurturing; however, it is at this juncture in my own life where I have realized that due to my upbringing, I never realized individuals could actually have a “say” in the curriculum being created for their schooling, and it would be totally outrageous to think that teachers would question the intended approach.
After reading chapters one and two, I find myself learning a great deal of history about my own career. The approaches to communication whether it be through writing or speaking have evolved from in my opinion, they way I grew up – not questioning, just doing the assignments, to what is best for our students? As a Language Arts teacher in an urban community with a 30% identified special needs population, I wholeheartedly believe that the curriculum provided to schools by the state should be enhanced for the demographic of the student population in order to produce effective writers. If administrators were to view the process of composition as an area where it is acceptable and encourage to introduce relative and identifiable material to the classes, I believe you would see students who are learning and in turn becoming productive.
Service Learning projects in schools in my opinion are not a stable force. I have not seen an expectation set forth from administrators as to the positive outcomes associated with community involvement and it is teacher’s discretion as to what participation looks like. This topic leaves me a bit “on the fence.” I have participated in Service Learning projects that are extremely rewarding and afford the opportunity to become acquainted with your students at an entirely different level, and also I feel the pressures being a teacher by nature comes with. The amount of documentation teachers are required to maintain to prove they are teaching leaves them with less time to actually instruct!
I believe everyone, even the students must prioritize what is most important and beneficial to their future successes. If I am helping one student succeed, and make a tentative plan for their future, I consider that to be making a real difference.
First, both of the readings gave very thorough overviews of the shifts or progression of discourse in composition and literacy studies. In my view, conceiving discourse and literacy from a social perspective enables educators to push learners beyond basic academic literacies to discourse that has the potential to make both political and or social changes within society. This can be seen as strength because learners simultaneously receive the skills necessary for the classroom, while being able to apply the same skills in the real world. Adversely, as Grabill’s article shows from the example of Western District, conceiving discourse and literacy from a social perspective can be limiting. If our definitions of literacy, which are often institutional, are not consistently renewed, then there is the risk that programs designed to teach literacy miss their mark by not adequately serving the population that might need it most. Then the program would be a waste of both time and money. Also, as Weisser’s book suggests, some of the radical approaches to composition fail to include groups of learners who do not meet the typical learner found in academia, i.e. white, male, middle-class, etc. This is another limitation of a social perspective because at the very least, you want composition and literacy programs that most people can benefit from. I think students who use literacy outside of the classroom enjoy a few benefits from these experiences. One, the skills they develop in the classroom can be given real world applicability. Two, as I’ve witnessed personally, students who use literacy outside of the classroom in the community feel a greater sense of connectedness to the learning institution. And three, students feel a connectedness with the community they serve. I think these outcomes should be some of the goals of composition and literacy studies.
One of the concerns that some will have relative to “social” methods regards the student who excels in the highly-structured “fill my glass with yummy facts” classroom. (Think of the two students that Aimem mentioned.) My high school had a valedictorian who failed miserably on a full ride to Baldwin-Wallace. I have two nieces that despite each one being in the top ten of their high school graduating class and doing remarkably well in college are what I would consider “Unthinkers,” that is they are floating along with little ability to grasp the realities of the world around them. Both are doing well professionally (a k-3 teacher and a nurse practitioner), but neither seem to have the ability to take part in any kind of discussion that involves higher thinking. Both are idealogues when it comes to their politics, family, and religion. They both graduated from college in the last 4 years and they both were involved in some sort of service-learning project. I can’t say for sure but I suspect they “got through” those episodes based on their sound abilities to “give the teacher what s/he wanted” as far as product was concerned. Neither seemed to have gained intellectually from that experience. Despite social learning in action—people will get through without the ability to think critically (for themselves). It’s my belief that what they got was not an education, but simply job training. (see my rant last week about large service-learning projects). The basic Friere notion of creating critical thinkers relates in some way to Stanley Fish’s idea of learning for the sake of learning. I’m not exactly sure yet how to tie those two together, but there is something meaty there to delve into.
Weisser writes: "Political, social, and intellectual conditions in the 1960s and 1970s brought about fundamental changes in American education and composition studies..." (p.3).
There are certainly lessons to be learned about implementing social change from the 1960s and 1970s. However, the ugly New Millennium truth is that the teaching and learning of language skills is actually more challenging now than before.
American public education no longer occupies the top tier of success in the world arena. The tidal wave of non-English speaking immigrants from non-European countries is rapidly swelling in U. S. public schools. Furthermore, the quality of public education, particularly in the language arts fields is depreciating. This is the unfortunate fact of the matter; despite, the idealism of the sixties and seventies or the New Millennium mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. Therefore, Weisser sites Bruffee's suggestion that the teaching of discourse and composition become a collaborative effort. "Collaborative learning provides a social context in which students can experience and practice the kinds of communication--through conversation and writing--that are valued by normal discourse communities" (p. 23).
In other words, the shifting of discourse and composition teaching and learning from an individualistic-authoritarian mode to a collaborative strategy is a response to the complexities of a new literacy acquisition process. The whole idea of bringing discourse and composition learning and teaching experiences into the public sphere is designed to get us "all on the same page" at some point.
Dialogic methods (Chapter Two) are interactive and involve an intellectual exchange between teachers, students, and peer groups. This is a method that can certainly stimulate discourse and critical thinking. However, community literacy engages many students who may have skill deficits. The desire to dialog or raise political consciousness must not tempt the instructor or the student to neglect the tedious, grinding, but utterly necessary technical skill building aspects of language usage.
In response to Jill, I too have heard Dr. Owens speak and it was the most compelling speech I have ever heard. He truly does make you want to take action. I think his message is very simple: literacy is critical. At Vision 2015, we have a literacy initiative that focuses on recruiting volunteers from the community to become literacy coaches for elementary students to help bring them up to reading proficiency. This literacy program that we are trying to implement in Northern Kentucky elementary schools has proven measures that improve student achievement, and it provides all members of a community—employers, parents, faith-based and involved citizens—an opportunity to play an integral role in helping struggling readers with the support they need to be successful in reading. If a child is not reading at grade level by the third grade, he or she has little to no chance of catching up. Research has shown that children who are academically successful in their early years are able to take advantage of more opportunities later.
I agree with Jason's concerns regarding the structural consequences that could arise due to a less structured classroom. Even if you're not a teacher, it is evident that students today are not as willing to participate in class, go beyond the requirements of a lesson, or think critically. I see all three of these as key elements in the inclusive classroom and without a scaffolded type lesson or outcome, I don't know how practical an inclusive classroom will be. Particularly in communities where there is no value at home on school, let alone becoming literate or effective in creating compositions. It is one of those theories you really want to believe, but reality doesn't support the desired outcome.
Kristi Colwell
“I never realized individuals could actually have a ‘say’ in the curriculum being created for their schooling…” – Kristi
I suppose this part of your post stuck in my mind because I think many teachers do not question such things. Is it a result of that ‘authoritarian ideology” we accept and even implement enrolling into the profession?
I dunno. Maybe I just question too much. Maybe I am just bothered at how educators don’t see the “politics” or the “economics” that often are the driving forces behind education.
For example, we are about to administer the EXPLORE Test to the eighth grade students at our school. This test is an “early indicator” as to how they will potentially score on the 10th grade PLAN Test which is another indicator as to how they may eventually score on the final ACT Exam. These standardized tests are now even used to generate each school’s accountability index for the now infamous NCLB.
However, no one questions the “business side” of this whole scheme. I’m sorry, but why does no one question how (or why) we have just tripled the stock, worth, and investments of the company (companies) involved in producing the ACT Exam? Educators just simply gripe and complain about “another test” but still swallow it and comply.
I have my own beefs with the whole ACT/SAT farce. I mean, are those tests true indicators of student performance or merely indicators/identifiers of those students/clients who possess the same ideologies as the test makers?
But maybe that is why I also see the “public” as a place like Harris does.
“...it’s hard not to have some type of authority figure in the classroom…” – jenc
I know that it does seem too ideal to be possible, but is it? I thought it was interesting in reading about the notion that the teacher needs a student to teach, but a student does not need a teacher in order to learn.
I think that with the technology increasing and expanding at its current pace, the idea of a diminishing role for teachers seems very plausible. As a teacher, that isn’t a comforting thought, but I do think it’s reality.
I will try and locate a link to an article I read about how there are “learning hubs” or communities being established for home-schooled students. These students are not required to attend, but can “drop by” to discuss matters with peers or to sit in on discussions by presenters (usually professors by local colleges). The concept of these learning communities is quite novel, but truly puts learning in the hands of the students and allows them to learn and move at their own pace. Initially, one would think that such schools could endorse lower standards, but at least by the example in the article, just the opposite was true. These teens were far more advanced than the regular high-schooler.
I agree with aimem’s commentary that people learn and excel in different manners and would add, at different rates. How unfortunate that a high functioning student fell by the wayside because of the lack of structure and a pity there was no-one to help him learn the skills to structure himself (in a way that would be personally meaningful for him). That you engage others in your reading and writing activities shows you already see the immense value beyond the classroom. This was the groundbreaking findings of Emig’s “composing aloud” technique (pg.12), and you were doing this without ever knowing!
Rabe says: “Students wouldn’t have to be told why such a skill was important; they would experience the value immediately. Thus, under this notion, students would be more willing to learn and grow and better themselves because they would see the value of their own education.”
I agree with what Rabe says because the main compliant you hear from students is “how is this going to benefit me once I’m in the real world.” Learning these communication skills can take them above and beyond their world in a way that traditional teachings will not. Humans naturally want to interact with others – even those labeled as “introverts” have a circle of family & friends to touch base with & communicate. Personally, I learn more and get more from a class where there is a lot of discussion and debate on the topics we cover versus the professor/teacher lecturing for an hour or more. It makes the text come alive & gives life to something that otherwise is quite boring to me.
Kristi, I really value your contributions to this class. As a teacher, you are giving us insight on the application side that is helping me understand the theoretical. Your point about the documentation becoming an impediment to teaching really struck a chord. I’m beginning to get a feel for the bureaucracy you and all teachers face. Seeing the challenges inside the classroom might help us come up with ways to teach outside the classroom, right? I’d like to hear more about your service learning projects. The fact that you are involved in this conversation should help assure you that you are making a difference to your students.
This anecdote seems vaguely pertinnent to me:
I was speaking with Jenny last week that I ran into a high school English teacher of mine . . probably 3 or 4 years after I graduated and asked her what books she was teaching now. I remember being somewhat appalled when she said that she was giving AP students a choice between reading either Frankenstein or Jurassic Park. Years later now though, after having gotten my degree and some perspective, I can see her point of view now.
It seems to me that if we're teaching GREAT BOOKS (ie, 'canon') because of the virtue that they are simply great books (because of their form, style, traditional tools of literary explication) then that greatly limits how a reader can embrace that literature. If a high schooler tries to read Frankenstein and doesn't appreciate it as a great work of literature then that assignment was nothing more than an a) an academic exercise and b) a waste of time to the student. On the other hand though, if a student is taught the real world applications and meanings of the literature (something similar in both Frankenstein and Jurasic Park) then that unit of study has resonance and context. The little "Fish" in me still recoils at the thought of giving modern literature the same place on the shelf and cultural 'value' as the so-called 'classic' literature, but with the broadening and deepening of culture and the very real need for students to bring their own experiences to the table in learning and be able to really learn real-world applicable skills from the humanities, I think that the shift is important.
I can see where Jason is coming from when he says that social focus in courses is a good idea. But, I also agree that it may prove to be a bit difficult to restructure an entire way of teaching. I'm not sure that it would be completely changing the fact that something is being taught, but how exactly to go about it is still a huge concern. What, if any, are some boundaries that would be put up to dictate what social issues are 'acceptable' and which are not? Will the role of the instructor stay the same, or will they have to learn to let go somewhat? And who is to say who decides these things. I think it is as excellent idea to bring different ideologies into the classroom, however, getting to that point may prove to be more difficult than it seems.
About Odell Ownens, Jill I said,
"He left the room and there was an odd silence. Students and teachers returned to their classrooms.
I feel like a great opportunity was lost."
I think I would have been as struck by Owens' presentation as you were, but I began wondering what was on their minds as they returned to their classrooms. I wonder if, knowing the presentation would be powerful, the students should perhaps have been asked to hold their thoughts for few moments to process what they had seen/heard. Once back in the classroom, the conversation would be untainted by and from-the-hip comments and a serious discussion could take place before any wisecracks effectively silenced anyone.
I would like to have talked with every student in that room as well. I do wonder if that silence might have been useful in some way in promoting a more reasoned discourse a few minutes later. In the quiet walk back, how could students not think critically about what they had just experienced?
I thought that Jill’s post was interesting. Isn’t this class, in fact, what she’s proposing? Last week in class we discussed the different theories relating to discourse and the public sphere and many people voiced their opinions, some listened, and others thought. Professor Wilkey is asking us how we should teach literacy through these discussions (we’re all students). As for asking other students how we should teach literacy, I’ve tried a democratic approach to teaching in classrooms at the college entry level (composition I and II). It wasn’t very productive. Students tended to suggest only easy assignments that entailed the least bit of work (or no work at all). Even more serious students had problems finding a direction. It would seem that we have all become so steeped in the traditional student/teacher exchange that was discussed somewhat last week, when given the chance, students aren’t sure what to do. Perhaps if we began at early ages, to set aside timeframes in a school day to give students the opportunity to speak candidly about subjects that interest them and affect their lives, they would be more receptive to it throughout the rest of their educational years. To change the future, don’t we have to alter the present and dispel habits and traditions of the past?
I can definitely identify with Scott when he talks about his two nieces who recently graduated from college. It seems that many students only want to do, or are only taught to do what it takes to pass a course to ultimately get a good job. While this may be a great feat in itself, especially considering what environment a person is coming from, shouldn't we teach or somehow inspire students to want more. In a study skills course that one of my friends took in college, most of the emphasis was placed on following directions. The instructor seemed to stress that one of the best ways to get through college was to simply do what was asked of you by the instructor. Now, understandably this was just a study skills course, but is this the kind of message that we want to start students out with?
Post a Comment