Hairston: Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing

In her article, Hairston explains her concern that, after the major gains college introductory writing courses have had over the years, that they have begun to regress. Instead of the classes being about allowing inexperienced writers to become competent in their writing skills and be able to effectively express themselves, she fears that classes have now become politically charged. By forcing students to write about a specific social issue in their essays, rather than about what they know, "...they are likely to take refuge in generalities and responses that please the teacher" (189). Not only is individual expression denied, but they will have learned only that there is a "correct way to think" (189).

While I agree with Hairston that basic writing classes should be strictly student-centered and kept away from the political realm, I think she goes a bit overboard in her argument, and I have issues with the majority of page 188 of the article. Although it is dangerous to allow teachers to hold a power that they could abuse by forcing their political opinions upon students, I doubt that the majority of teachers have that kind of motive. Hairston almost makes it sound like every writing teacher who assigns essays about social or racial injustice is attempting to recruit their own little political army. I highly doubt this is the case. Even if the teacher did express his or her opinions upon the class, Hairston has to realize that college students aren't as impressionable as she is assuming them to be. If they made it to the college level, chances are many of them have their own political opinions, so if anything, the classroom setting would turn into more of a heated political argument amongst the students.

Also, I know Hairston was talking specifically about intro writing classes, but I don't see how writing essays about current social and political events in writing classes is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I found that I've applied concepts I learned in my women's studies and sociology classes to some of my writing classes, in both discussion and papers. Isn't that the point of college? To bridge that gap between all of the disciplines (in their respective "ivory towers") and apply them to the real world?

Cushman: The Public Intellectual

Cushman presents a rather idealistic theory in order to resolve the social issue of disconnect between "intellectuals" and "common people." She believes that by making social service part of the university curriculum, it would bridge the gap between the elite, educated people and those in our community who do not have access to the same educational activities. By doing so, the educational system will better serve the community as a whole, by creating a mutualistic learning experience for both educated and uneducated people.

I like the idea that Cushman presents as a way to connect the community and benefit those who would not otherwise have access to educational opportunities. However, although she makes a point to say that participating students should not act the "savior role," I can't help but shake the feeling that they play a superior role in the interaction with other community members. It feels like a front, like the students aren't as genuinely invested in learning from others as they are in pouring their own "superior" knowledge into the minds of others.

Not to be a downer, but I do feel like on the whole, the relationship between the "intellectual elites" and "common people" will always be a little strained. Still, attempting to bridge the gap is bettwe than allowing the gap to become wider, and I have hope that eventually, if this system of mutualistic learning persists, Cushman's theory and ideals will stand on their own in our society.

Anson: Writing in a Culture of Technology

It was interesting for me to compare Anson's article on implementing technology ino the classroom with the article I found by Webb, which discusses almost the exact same concept, except TWELVE YEARS LATER. The main difference is that Anson's article is mostly theoretical, things he believes will happen in the years to come based on our rapidly developing era of technology.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always been a little wary on becoming too dependent on technology. Anson's ideas of individualized learning, though seemingly ideal for a person attempting to foster his or her own writing style, somehow just doesn't appeal to me. Of course, after meeting face-to-face with other students and a professor in all of my writing classes, I go home and apply what I've learned to my own style and ideas, so the independent writing process is still in place (and I believe writing alone IS one of the most important aspects of learning about one's own thought process). However, losing that group discussion and interaction, the ability to comepare oneself with the works of other students and learn from their ideas (and even their mistakes), well, I just don't think we'd be doing ourselves any favors, and in the end, technology is really only about efficiency rather than improvement.

I can't remember if it was Anson or Webb who claimed this, but yes, I do agree that accessible technology makes people want to write more often, but that does not necessarily mean it makes us write better. In fact, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites, our grammar has gone to shit, and we have trouble having thoughts that are any more than 160 characters. Call me old fashioned, but I think that, as valuable as technology is in terms of researching, convenience of emails, and having a template on which to organize one's thoughts, there is no replacement for face-to-face interaction. Technology should remain a back-up, not a substitute, for dicect contact, both student-to-student, and student-to-teacher.

Article on Writing & Technology

"Rhizomatics": Following the roots in writing and research heuristics." Adam Webb.

Webb basically takes someone else's theory (referred to as Cormier), which is called a "rhizomatic model of education," and applies it to the classroom setting. "Rhizome" is a concept which provides a "flexible conception of knowledge for the information age" (3). Cormier beleives that knowledge can be negotiated and that learning is a contextual, collaborative endeavor, and using web-based programs, students can greatly expand their ability to research and write. With this kind of information technology now commonplace in society, students can now explore different perspectives of an issue or topic, develop their own perspectives, create a narrative that allows the audience to come up with their own perspective on the subject. Webb provides questions for students to ask themselves, as well as activities for teachers to conduct in the classrooms to make the shift into a more technology-based classroom learning experience.

The article is significant in today's world because, unlike my generation, who grew up as this technology was first becoming available to us, kids and adolescents today are expected to know how to use the technology that they've always known to exist, as well as be able to utilize the information that is so easily accessible. Classrooms absolutely need to make this shift (if they haven't already) to incorporate this type of learning in the classroom.

Rose and Apstein

In his article, Rose targets the issues that face unskilled writers in the college setting (what a new and intriguing topic!). He claims that today's writing curriculum focuses on only improving the technical skills of these writers through remedial drills and practices. What is wrong with this system, Rose says, is that "such work is built on a set of highly questionable assumptions: that a writer has a relatively fixed repository of linguistic blunders that can be pinpointed and corrected through drill..." (345). In reality, this offers only a simplistic understanding of where the problems truly lie, which are within the institution itself, and the scientific, quantifiable way in which it deals with students who are not adequately prepared for college-level writing. There is inherent danger in this method, because it focuses only on technical errors, rather on how we are able to present the knowledge we have gleaned from various courses through our writing.

I remember taking short-answer or short-essay tests in high school, and even in some finals for college classes, and I cringe at how bad my writing probably was. The only thing I (and most other students) concentrate on is getting the facts down on paper, to prove our understanding of a subject. This method, however, completely trivializes the discipline of writing, because isn't part of learning about the ability to not only restate what you have learned, but to eloquently write about how these facts relate to the real world, or even questioning what you've learned? The alternative is basically regurgitating facts out of a textbook, and let's face it, anyone can do that. Higher education is about applying what we've learned to our lives outside of the classroom, and writing aids us in doing just that.

All I really learned from Apstein's short article was how she agreed with Rose's article, but believes that, in order to give merit to his argument, he would have to specify the type of writinghe means, the kind in which one interprets the curriculum, which ilustrates how one actively engages in building one's knowledge on a subject.

Brooke: Underlife and Writing Instruction

I found that Brooke's argument overlapped with a few of the key ideas from Delpit's article, as well as from Elbow's article about ignoring audience. Brook argues, like Delpit, that all students feel the need to distance themselves from the classroom, to express themselves as people with interests and personalities that extend beyond the identity of "student." Current institutions, however, tend to be in conflict with the student/writer's need to express him or herself as an individual, in the same way that a teacher's desire to teach writing as a "freeing process" has gone against the "idealogical purposes of the institution" (149).

Brooke offers a suggestion to shift the identity roles in the classroom, to make students into writers in order to facilitate original thinking, as opposed to what they believe a teacher would want. He makes a good point to say that in order for writers be become good at what they do, they absolutely need to see themselves as more than just "good students," because in the real world outside the classroom, what they learned about their underlife identity is what will really matter.

Delpit: The Silenced Dialogue

Delpit describes in her article the "culture of power" that is reflected from the outside world into classrooms. She believes (and I agree) that the power group, namely white, middle-class people, as well as their spoken language and teaching methods, have taken over the classroom setting, which in turn has silenced the poor and/or non-white community and their culture. As a result, there is a language barrier of sorts between the white teacher and the Black students because the language the teacher uses in the classroom is based on the "process-oriented" method, and it ignores the "skills-oriented" learning method that the child has experienced at home. Those in the power group already understand the language, and therefore they are able to be more successful in the classroom. By having a "one-size-fits-all" teaching method, teachers are ensuring that the status quo remains intact.

Of course, Delpit isn't saying that this culture of power is an intentional move by white teachers, but she is saying that the system needs to take these things into account. She argues that it is not the parents of the children who need to change their home teaching methods. Rather, it is the school that needs to make changes. Delpit understands that this is a "top-down" issue to be addressed.

What I appreciated most about Delpit's article were the solutions she offered for this division of language in the classroom. She stresses the importants of students being "taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life...within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher's expert knowledge, while being helped to achknowledge their own "expertness" as well" (296). In this way, both approaches, process and skill oriented, can ideally be used, which would level the playing field in the classroom.

Scattered Thoughts

Many of the articles we’ve read, I believe, are expansions of Murray’s question about why and how we teach something as abstract as the process of writing. From this question stem many different and contradicting theories, the most intriguing one I found to be Elbow’s argument for writing without a specific audience in mind, and rather emphasizing the act of freewriting, at least in the initial stages of the process. Often I feel that when I concentrate too much on how audience will perceive my writing, that I will push away certain ideas, and in this way I restrain my thoughts on a subject and direct them only towards what I believe my audience wants to hear. By directing our writing in this way, not only are we actively limiting our thought process, but setting ourselves up for a rather boring piece of writing.
In terms of how to teach writing in the classroom, I think the emphasis should be not on how to construct a sentence or an essay; those things will come with time. Rather, the emphasis should be on putting pen to paper and simply getting thoughts out so writers can visually see where they what they’re trying to say. Refining said thoughts should come later, and this is the core of Elbow’s argument. As he says, “…it’s hard to disguise something while engaged in trying to figure it out.” Writing should be regarded as a process rather than a product; a writer is never really done with a piece of writing, because there is always a new perspective to take, a new way of stating something, a new idea to bring forth. “In short,” Elbow says, “ignoring audience can lead to worse drafts but better revisions.”
Still, I find myself going back and forth about which method is the most effective when it comes to teaching students how to write coherent and concise academic papers: is it better to allow them to forget audience and write what they know, allowing the technical skills to come later? Or
The question that I may want to explore in my longer paper is how to change the way students view their writing process in the classroom. I want to theorize on the how and why students should view writing as a means of self-expression, rather than as a way to prove themselves to an outside (often intimidating) audience, like a teacher. I think back on Ong’s example of how teachers have students write the generic essay, “What I did on my summer vacation,” when I consider how writing is taught now. The only occasion students can give for writing this essay is “because the teacher told me to.” How can a young person find joy in the creative process of writing if teachers insist on removing the creativity?
I think teachers have the power to either hone their students’ creative skills, or turn them permanently away from them. The trick is to get students to understand the beauty of writing, which is that one has the freedom to say whatever comes to mind, and then to go back and edit one’s thoughts, an aspect lost in verbal communication where, once an opinion is stated, it is much more difficult to change or take back. If teachers can achieve that initial value of writing within students when they are at an early age, we would see many less “basic” writers, or students who truly feel as though they have “nothing to say” on a subject later on in their academic careers.