Or not. At least not in my house. I can’t help thinking about the half a weekend my husband and I spent cleaning the junk, I mean, treasures, out of my kids’ bedrooms. (Yes, it took an entire day… So, what’s your point?) My point is they both have too many treasures, and left to their own devices, neither one would ever part with any of them. The word “hoarders” comes to mind. So what do my messy kids have to do with writing pedagogy? To me this all ties in with our previous readings and upcoming discussions on how writers get their "stuff," specifically Elbow’s activity of repeated free writing. In other words, get everything down on paper (or stuffed into every nook and cranny in your bedroom), and edit and or revise later (have your parents get rid of the clutter). But it also provides an effective segue to this week’s reading on arrangement. Once you have figured out which pieces to keep, how do you arrange it so that it works for your intended audience? (Whether the audience is you, your parents, someone else altogether…) For my kids, I suggest shelves. As for writing, I look to Lynn…
In his chapter on Arrangement, Lynn discusses the relationship between form and function, and presents the question of whether form necessarily follows function, as Louis Sullivan believes, or should they “be one, joined in a spiritual union,” as Frank Lloyd Wright believes? Using a very “visual” approach he ultimately concludes that form and function work together in a way determined by the writer’s purpose, content, and audience. I found particularly relevant the section on structure, in which Lynn makes many points that teachers identify with on a daily basis: painful reading of cookie cutter five-paragraph essays, marking the same grammatical errors repeatedly on paper after paper, and students’ dislike of writing (he refers specifically to Freshman Composition, but the same holds true in elementary school). The effects of teachers “marking up with rigor” as Lynn puts it (some teachers have stopped using red ink to make corrections in an attempt to spare students’ feelings) could be a separate blog altogether. (Perhaps it will be?)
The bottom line is that students need to learn a various approaches to writing based on what they are trying to say, to whom, and why (content, audience, purpose). As for the various modes (although after reading D’Angelo’s piece, I may be referring to those incorrectly), Lynn refers to a “pedagogical stasis” which I can’t envision changing any time in the near future. Should they? I guess it depends who you ask. Hopefully I’ll have the information necessary to develop a well-articulated opinion by sometime in April. For now, we teach what we know.
So there you have it - form and function working together, in writing and in everyday life with kids. I sort the treasures, my husband builds the shelves based on need, and the kids come up with “arrangements” of their stuff that everyone can live with. Again, it boils down to purpose, audience and what works for the kid (or writer). While I’m leaving the door open to new ideas on writing pedagogies and rhetorical canons, when it comes to the kids’ bedrooms, maybe next time I’ll just shut the door… (I wish we would have done that on Sunday!)
I spoke of balance in my blog--balance between the variety of examples and assignments given our students. In an ideal world, I think students would develop a love of the craft of writing before learning about formalized forms and structures (maybe high school?). Until then, I think we keep on doing what we've been doing the best way we can--working in the frameworks we're given and inspiring students the best we can.
ReplyDeleteMy sympathies on the room clean-outs :). My two youngest are good about "stuff" but my oldest is a LEGO maniac. There are never enough shelves!