This week's readings made so much sense - Bland's criticisms of a strictly cognitive approach made me rack my brain about how and what type of writing could take place without emotion. Short of a strictly technical piece, I struggled to envision such writing. Bland's concern with the approach promoting a mechanistic view of the human mind (Miller 710) and her discussion about the relationship between personality and discursive style (Miller 711) really reinforced what I've been thinking about how teachers relate to student writing, and whether or not our expectations (based on Pennsylvania writing rubrics) are realistic, or even realistic.
Britton's ideas about 'shaping at the point of utterance' made me think about the possibility of having struggling writers, or any student for that matter, speak into a tape recorder then listen to what they've said. It might provide some scaffolding to help them understand the relationship between the spoken and written word without being inhibited, either mentally or by the physical movement of their pencils. Scaffolding, of course, is temporary, and could be removed as students' confidence increased. Just a thought...
Finally, I found Flower's and Hayes' ideas about the cognition of discovery insightful, as well. I will definitely refer to their Rhetorical Problem model (Miller 471) and the breakdown of how good and poor writers approach problems (Miller 471) as I filter through my ideas of how I can construct an effective writing program in my classroom. Add another boxcar to the train...
So as we move through this journey of pedagogical exploration and analyze which components of each we will espouse and/or dismiss, I'm happy to have so many options to choose from. Our class has discussed on numerous occasions the importance of variety when approaching our students' (and our own) writing needs. We need to make sure to share with them that if the first boxcar doesn't fit their needs, their are many other cars to choose from.
Hi Lora!
ReplyDeleteI loved reading your post this week; I liked both your insight on Brand and how it applies to teaching, as well as your nice "train" analogy. I, too, have been considering our discussion last week about the traditional type of schooling where we have the same expectations for all students regardless of their styles of learning and self-expression. In other words, the expectations are articulated by a test, or by curriculum standards, yet all students are not academically equal. I loved your example of having a student listen to what he or she said about the material before writing. Another example would be to draw what they're thinking before writing--or, storyboarding (I think that's what it's called?). Finally, I agree that there is probably an infinite number of styles for teaching writing because each individual is unique. Perhaps our jobs as teachers (and future teachers) is to understand that concept and embrace it.
"I agree that there is probably an infinite number of styles for teaching writing because each individual is unique. Perhaps our jobs as teachers (and future teachers) is to understand that concept and embrace it."
ReplyDeleteCan't say it much better than that! If only the powers that be agreed ;).