Let me preface this by saying, I am only two pages into Murray and have hit Implication #2. I feel as though a great deal of the theory we discuss is wonderful in its application to college level composition classes and to elementary education. In the first case of post secondary ed, rules of an aligned curriculum don’t need to be followed and the time schedule is much more flexible for the instructor – ( I don’t know if any of this is true, since I have never been on the instructing side of a college course, but let’s go with it.) On the elementary side, students are relatively untouched by the prejudices and ingrained behaviors resulting from bad or no writing instruction. Perhaps this opinion is being shaped by my current moral dilemna of how to make the grammar unit I am forced to teach relevant in a course where I am to teach literature, writing (not composition), and grammar, all within certain prescribed blocks of time.
Back to Imp #2, “The student finds his own subject” (5). At the high school level we have received a group of students saturated with dependancy on their instructors for, well – instructions. Imp # 5, “The student is encouraged to attempt an form of writing” (6) I picture myself in front of the classroom, “Today’s writing assignment is a search for truth, your truth, any truth that is your own. You may write in any form, essay, poem, narrative, etc., you desire. Do not worry about spelling, grammar, etc. You may make a list of subjects that interest you or free write until a subject comes to you, whatever you need to do in order to begin writing about something that is true for you.”
Example of student responses:
“How long does this have to be?” (What is the least amount that I can write and still pass?”)
“Is this homework?” (translation: If it is, I’m not doing it now.)
“Is this due today?” (translation: If it’s not due today, I’m not doing it now.)
“When is this due?” (translation: I need to know how long I have until I have to do this.)
“What are we supposed to write?” (translation: If you don’t give me a subject, I’m not doing it.)
Now there are about fifty more, but you all know them already. My point, I need de-programming help before I can get my students into these brilliant plans of composition. Also, how do I integrate the b.s. from the curriculum in order to play a little c.y.a? Now, Julie, I can hear your common sense advice in my head already. So here is what I was thinking, (preliminary thoughts and asking for suggestions) I give this assignment as a way to teach the elements of grammar once we have finished the writing process and have reached the editing stages. Students can use their work as a substitute for the exercises in the book that are supposed to teach writing clearer sentences. However, I’m not sure how to give them examples (as a group) of how to find sentences in their work that could use clarification. Any suggestions? I know this sounds bizarre. Wouldn’t they just know by reading their work which sentences need clarification? Answer: No. Also, still not working out my time restraint problem. To be continued . . .
I read Tobin’s Process Pedagogy and appreciated the history, but appreciated the lists of applicable literature even more. Wow, is my next Amazon order going to put a hole in my checking account.
“Writing should be viewed and taught as an activity” (4) reminded me of ‘writing’ as a verb, not a noun. Tobin’s comment that, “writing does not merely reflect what the writer knows but actually generates meaning through the identification of the writer’s own unconscious thoughts” helped me to connect to Emig’s Writing as a Mode of Learning.
However, what I enjoyed most were two comments, though separate in the text, were connected in topic. First, “the differences in theory are less clear and less significant in the classroom” (10), and while discussing the critiques of process theory, “As a product of contemporary critical theory, these critiques make some sense to me. As a classroom teacher, though, I have my doubts, for while positivists notions of agency, authorship, voice, and self may be philosophically naive, they can still be pedagogically powerful.” (15) I appreciate these statements as they make a distinction between the worlds of theory and practice. Often theory seems overly complex and inapplicable to the classroom when minute distinctions don’t apply directly to a student’s or teacher’s treatment of a subject. Though these issues are important for the further development of a writer, often, when encouraging students to just attempt a more authentic writing, issues like those of a political or social nature can easily be pushed from the forefront of pedagogy.