We are coming into these readings at the same time that we are beginning to think about our teaching philosophies. A big choice these readings suggested I make was whether to see English as a quantifiable skill or as an essential underpinning of knowledge. As a quantifiable skill, English can be measured in terms of grammar and structure, taught as a set of tools, and improved to the point of definite mastery. As something more fundamental, English becomes attuned to the subject it interacts with, and mastery becomes a fluid combination of how and why. It becomes important not only how something is structured and written but why something is structured and written specifically in that way. A third factor is also introduced, what. The many discourse communities that exist each have their own how and why and what. Can English be taught in a way that accommodates such wide-reaching arenas?
The critical pedagogy approach has several variations from Freire to Burke, and many good notions come from it. Freire's critique of the banking model of teaching is something I agree with completely; students need to be more than receivers. A student treated as a receiver of knowledge for too long may develop habits of receiving that make them LESS PRODUCTIVE members of a democracy if those habits replace critical thinking with blind following. One part I am less fond of, however, is bringing any form of politics into the classroom as a basis for assignments. That said, I don't think politics can be completely removed; the act of teaching is political in itself. Still, bringing traditional political views of republican/democrat, liberal/conservative, etc. may also bring with a form of separation among students (and yourself as the teacher) that isn't beneficial to the course. I'd rather teach composition as a way of giving your own voice shape and influence SO THAT you can go into the world arena equipped to make the changes you want. If that is the goal, it is best that my own voice does not oppress the very voices I seek to empower.
Hi Steven,
ReplyDeleteOne thing I’ve been struggling with in the readings has to do with the reluctance of some of the texts to define writing as a “skill.” It seems that they often turn, as Rose himself did, to vague, more abstract definitions of writing which still seem to fall under the umbrella of a skill. For example, Rose says that writing is not a skill, but “an ability whose development is not fixed but ongoing,” but that definition seems to be perfectly compatible with the idea of a skill. Your own definition of a mastery of writing being a fluid combination of “how and why” interactions actually seems more advanced than Rose’s, or at least further delineated, but I still wonder if it could not be quantified as a skill. The mindset that allows someone to ask those “how and why” questions seems that it too could be called a skill without much loss of meaning. I may, however, just be missing the point. Do you think that your definition excludes the idea of a skill, or are you simply trying to define writing in a way that puts its emphasis on process over product?
Thanks!
Andrew