I find this research compelling, that children are already geared to "write" on their own terms. The standard approach suggests that students don't have anything to write about when coming into a class, but what they actually are lacking is a cause, or motivator for writing, as we have discussed in the Yancey article.
I could envision a class that exercised in-class writing, writing for homework, and extra-credit writing, just like what we are doing in this blog. We really don't need literature to prompt us to write, so I believe I am convinced by Lindemann's point.
I also found it interesting how Elbow describes a typical MFA workshop and the "gag rule."
"Writers must refrain from the most natural thing that they want to do, namely to specify the kinds of responses they need from readers or the issues they want readers to explore."
At least in this MFA, our workshops include a period at the end where the author can react to the comments of his/her peers and ask questions or answer things they may not have understood., and this combined approach was productive for my writing development, I can testify.
Lindemann and Elbow believe that we should emphasize more writing in the curriculum. Elbow states that we needed more “fifty-fifty courses (19)”believes students will become stronger writers by “invisible writing, (9)”which will allow the writer to “engage in nothing but writing. (10)" Elbow also makes the point to assign many little writing tasks to spark creativity and mentions that these don’t necessarily have to be graded or even looked at by the teacher. Linderman believes that “literature need not necessarily be transported into a writing course, (313) which means that teaching writing alone will encourage students to produce texts instead of being consumed by them (313).
I like Elbow’s idea of assigning little tasks to get students writing. I had/have a professor who assigns little class exercises that she never asks to look at or grade, unless we make it a point to show it to her . I think this is a good technique to use for students, but then again this was in a creative writing course.
I like the fifty-fifty approach. I like Elbow's idea of having students write about a personal experience in a particular subject and then presenting them with literature pertaining to that same subject/theme/experience and allowing them to make the connection--find similarities in the styles and/or approaches they used. Using literature as a "springboard" as he calls is not such a bad idea. It could also help generate the writer's own ideas. He believes students will benefit more if they are allowed to write "experimentally, playfully" without the fear of being graded at the end. I like that he mentioned that kids get "quicker understanding and control of literacy--language and texts--through writing than through reading." The input-output idea does not necessarily have to be in this order. Students can be writers first and this may lead them to want to read to discover if others have written like they have: similar ideas, styles, etc. I'd like to add that I too welcome the workshop sessions where we get to read each other's works and provide feedback. As a writer, I welcome the suggestions and questions.
Elbow's idea about trusting language blew me away. Even while composing a piece i was still trapped by the reading guidelines I was brought up with. To "forge on" is a must to anyone who aspires to be a writer. I did not really like the fifty-fifty approach because there are many more lit classes than writing ones. I can see how it would help a teacher who is covering both subjects, but for purposes of solely teaching writing I like Lindemann's "No Place of Literature" argument better. I’m also not too convinced with advocating against the “gag rule” in workshops because taking criticism with only your writing to defend yourself ensures that you grow as a writer. At least it did for me. Publishing student work is brilliant (Elbow mentions this one). It will show them the ‘start-to-finish’ process and I cannot think of a better way to get these kids to write. Elbow argues we are willing to show our work when we are children, not so much as adults. Fear obviously plays a giant role in this, but if we were eager to show our writing once, all that’s needed is motivation to do it again. Lindemann’s argument of including all subjects in a first-year writing course is excellent. I always thought of writing as a skill that only English majors could seek to master. First year writing courses must show the lower areas of study that writing is universal and extremely valuable. (I’m just kidding on the lower part).
I had to put down the Elbow article, about halfway through, in order to finally break into the overwhelming pile of essays I have been putting off grading, that have slowly eaten away at the top of my desk. While doing so, I thought to myself, I really can’t imagine assigning anymore writing. Elbow’s approach as to how to deal with his problem seems to be pretty convincing. (19) If we were to treat writing as we do reading, and be more “flexible” with the way we use writing as an instructive tool, it would be much easier to implement more writing in the classroom. Elbow suggests to “have a whole spectrum of writing,” from high stakes writing assignments, to low stakes writing assignments. The low stakes, informal writing assignments being made up of functioning drafts and private writings, and the high stakes writing assignments being seen through from first draft to publication. Sounds like good stuff to me.
Elbow suggests we need more writing courses which I do agree with. The fifty - fifty idea seems good, except it would take a delicate schedule of going back and forth to really fulfill the purpose of this method. We need to assign more writing, except who has the time to grade all this extra writing? I appreciated the point that we don't have to necessarily evaluate every single piece of writing; just like with reading, we cannot evaluate every single sentence/paragraph the students read. We have to put writing into perspective and be "flexible".
I really liked the fifty-fifty approach. In the last years of my undergrad courses I took some writing classes that used this approach. It got me writing and enjoying what I was doing. We would read many articles that pertained to the subject we were covering, then we would write a piece that somewhat emulated what the author was trying to get at but in our own words. Lindemann even mentions this style in her article. “A better way to teach style is by asking students to examine the texts they encounter in the academy, texts that define a much larger repertoire of rhetorical options than literary language customarily allows.” Elbow’s “gag-rule” is classic. I found myself laughing because it’s very true. But as Leif said above, our MFA program allows the author of the piece to speak after the initial comments of the class.
Both Lindermann and Elbow advocate the idea that writing needs to take a more prominent role in the classroom because as it is, more reading and comprehension assignments are done. However, we can conciously change this disturbing trend by implementing writing assignments/projects that will allow them to stretch their wriring capabilities. The writing tasks themselves should be meaningful and should be sretched across the other content areas. For example, exposing our students to different writing structures, from writing a business letter to a lab report. There arguments are valid because I have witnessed this behavior.
I agree with Ms. Meisel that we do need more writing in the classroom, but she does make a good point. Who is going to have the time to grade all of that? It is stated that all assignments don’t have to be given the same detailed attention and graded, but as teachers we cannot ignore all writing assignments. We must pay attention to some, or the ones we deem most important, in order to help our students improve their writing. If we implemented the “write and don’t grade” policy for some assignments, will students really put in their best effort? Will they be willing to come up with the best possible way of saying whatever they are trying to say, if it is never to be seen by the teacher? Will self-satisfaction for the students be enough?
I believe the point, Sarah, is that the low stakes assignments are opportunities for practice for the high stakes assignments, which will be examined with a critical eye. With that understanding, I believe a student would work har to get as much feedback as possible from their instructor to ensure that when it's their time to write for real, they've got what it takes.
As far as teacher workload is concerened, I'd make my comments brief for the multiple low-stake assignments and increase the depth of feedback as the stakes raise. But all this is assuming teachers are not already overburdened with jam-packed classrooms. This stratgy does seem less feasable in these situations, but that is do to an assembly-line educational system, which is not condusive to learning and critical thinking.
Manuel has a good point. Exposing the students to writing techniques that aren't soley based on English curriculum will not only give the writing meaning, to those students who complain that they'll never need a writing course for a math degree, but will prepare the student for university writing.
Sarah raises a good point. More writing should be incorporated into the English classroom. However, this is not reality in today's classroom, but I do believe their is a movement to change this. The new EOC standards will help to make writing a more prominent feature in the classroom. It will thus expose our students to a variety of writing modes and hopefully make them stronger writers.
I agree with having the students produce low-stake writing assignments and high stakes assignments and like Ms. Meisel mentioned--not have to necessarily evaluate every single piece. The idea is to get students to write. Period. I didn't mention this before, but I also like the idea of publishing the students' work. Elbow does mention that as adults, we tend to lose that "vision and naive grandstanding" and look to our younger selves with "condescension or ridicule" when it come to the enthusiasm we had for writing and the work that we produced.
I've always thought of myself as a writing teacher in an English classroom, so I found the instructions about teaching very affirming. My students write very often, without actually responding to any reading. On Monday for example, my students wrote about: "What do you believe in? How far would you go to defend your beliefs?" The journal was to preempt our reading of *The Poisonwood Bible.* So, writing first, then reading.
But I really like Elbow's advice on grading. (I also see that we have an entire reading on scoring later; can't wait.)
To answer the question: Lindemann and Elbow want us to teach writing, by TEACHING writing. Although they differ on their overall approaches, the generalization adheres: more writing courses; more time spent writing; more authentic opportunities for students to write. Writing (output) is the focus, NOT the method by which we interpolate another medium. Writing becomes the mode of understanding, not the reflection of it.
Side note: Sarah's worry about whether students will do the work if only some of it is graded is a valid concern. But, it is not a pedagogical problem. The answer is in discipline (or classroom) management. There are two easy ways to adequately address this issue. (1) Don't tell the students which essays receive a check and which ones receive feedback; the randomness will ensure that students maintain their work ethic (also, a check mark IS a grade, even if only a participation grade). (2) Have students write every day, or very often, and on Friday (or Turn It In Day), have the students staple all their work together (they should have X pieces turned in), but have them put the piece they want graded and feedback on, on top. They get two grades: one for the full feedback piece, and one for completing the in-class work.
Lindemann and Elbow call for the teaching of writing to have the same importance as the teaching of reading and literature. I've seen how reading is privileged over writing at the school where I teach and I remeber placing a strong emphasis on literature when I taught high school English a several years ago. The most benefical portion of Elbow's article is the section where provides ways to include more writing for a wide variety of purposes. Just as students are required to read a variety of texts, then they should also be exposed to many writing opportunites that are not all for high-stakes evaluations. Both believe we are writing too much about reading and not writing enough as an act of language.
I like what you're doing in the classroom Andrew. I'm not teaching yet but I hope when I do start that I can follow your strategy dealing with discipline management. Thanks for sharing!
I agree with Rosa and Ms. Meisel that students should have the opportunity for low-stakes writing. Doing this will take away the pressure school systems have placed on students through state assessments. The state assessments are definitely high-stakes when it comes to promotion to the next grade level and many schools push the high-stakes writing all year as practice for the real testing date. Imagine the pressure students face everyday to write a compostition for a specific topic graded by a specific rubric matching the state assessment.
"Turn it in Day" is pretty brilliant. I assign quite a bit of writing, but I have my students turn it in when they're done, and it ends up in a bunch of seperate piles all over my classroom. And home office. And vehicle. So having the students write a number of "low-stakes" writing assignments, and then compile them into one "high-stakes" writing assinment, and have them publish their "collection" at the end of the week, makes too much sense. Good stuff Andrew.
Sarah and Rosa, while I agree with what I said, I can't help but mention the importance of response to student writing. For instance if we want them to become better writers, we have to be delicate in how we respond to their writing(s). There is no single best way to respond, but from my experience, different students will find some kinds of comments or more comments in general more useful than others. Feedback is the most important thing we should be doing in a writing course. That is my opinion, but it makes such a difference to the student that they KNOW what they need to be doing for the next assignment. One thing I always keep in mind is that my students are different, and not all of them need the same attention. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish I suppose.
How do Lindemann and Elbow want us to teach writing? Lindemann says that in first year literature classes “The teacher talks 75 to 80 percent of the time. Students do very little writing,…” (313) Students write what they are expected to write and are not afforded the opportunity to write about the connection with “real life.” “If we will take the time to appreciate the writing that shapes other disciplines, we can become comfortable with, even confident about, constructing student-centered classrooms,…” (316) Elbow suggests a fifty-fifty approach (reading-writing) Students are given little tasks to get them to write on something that will later be specifically related to literature. They both enhance each other. I like the idea that using this fifty-fifty approach when teaching literature as a springboard will help students make a connection with real life. This helps them to generate ideas and write more experimentally. The idea that “a great deal is learned”
For as much as I would favor a fifty fifty approach for reading and writing, the actual professor will inevitably lean toward one or the other. Being aware of the benefits, on the other hand, can create a stronger more balanced curriculum regardless which one the professor favors. Even if a professor were to solely rely on reading, if skills are being acquired then the class merits respect. Knowing the skills that each approach provides will definitely aid in the creation and application of more balanced curricula.
In response to Manuel's comment, I am happy to confirm that there are more classrooms that take writing in itself as part of the learning as opposed to an actual reflection on reading/writing. Classroom's like Andrew's and others that I have observed have picked up on the "Writing to Learn" idea and incorporate student's independent thinking. Teachers, for the most part, have a deep desire for their students to learn and if an approach is evidently fruitful, will take it. Yet, the biggest concern that writing brings to the table is already mentioned idea of grading. With the advice of Elbow, Andrew's, and experience itself, one can hope that writing will take a stronger presence in a classroom. I would not like to see a classroom that forgets reading either, but one that knows the difference between the two.
Both these characters are on to something that I feel all English teachers/educators should be on to, and that is to find new ways to teach/pracitce writing. Just as the world is, writing and the ways of it are dramatically changing, so we should think of new ways to teach it, and implement it. Yes, easier said then done, but it seriously needs to start getting "done." Both authors feel more emphasis needs to be put on the actual act of writing. Linndeman says there's too much teacher talk and less student writing.
I believe their ideas are sincere, well-thought out, and influential to the future of writing. I'm hoping for new ways of teaching writing and can't wait to see what evolves.
I find this research compelling, that children are already geared to "write" on their own terms. The standard approach suggests that students don't have anything to write about when coming into a class, but what they actually are lacking is a cause, or motivator for writing, as we have discussed in the Yancey article.
ReplyDeleteI could envision a class that exercised in-class writing, writing for homework, and extra-credit writing, just like what we are doing in this blog. We really don't need literature to prompt us to write, so I believe I am convinced by Lindemann's point.
I also found it interesting how Elbow describes a typical MFA workshop and the "gag rule."
"Writers must refrain from the most natural thing that they want to do, namely to specify the kinds of responses they need from readers or the issues they want readers to explore."
At least in this MFA, our workshops include a period at the end where the author can react to the comments of his/her peers and ask questions or answer things they may not have understood., and this combined approach was productive for my writing development, I can testify.
So, fifty-fifty sounds to me like it works.
Lindemann and Elbow believe that we should emphasize more writing in the curriculum. Elbow states that we needed more “fifty-fifty courses (19)”believes students will become stronger writers by “invisible writing, (9)”which will allow the writer to “engage in nothing but writing. (10)" Elbow also makes the point to assign many little writing tasks to spark creativity and mentions that these don’t necessarily have to be graded or even looked at by the teacher. Linderman believes that “literature need not necessarily be transported into a writing course, (313) which means that teaching writing alone will encourage students to produce texts instead of being consumed by them (313).
ReplyDeleteI like Elbow’s idea of assigning little tasks to get students writing. I had/have a professor who assigns little class exercises that she never asks to look at or grade, unless we make it a point to show it to her . I think this is a good technique to use for students, but then again this was in a creative writing course.
I like the fifty-fifty approach. I like Elbow's idea of having students write about a personal experience in a particular subject and then presenting them with literature pertaining to that same subject/theme/experience and allowing them to make the connection--find similarities in the styles and/or approaches they used. Using literature as a "springboard" as he calls is not such a bad idea. It could also help generate the writer's own ideas. He believes students will benefit more if they are allowed to write "experimentally, playfully" without the fear of being graded at the end. I like that he mentioned that kids get "quicker understanding and control of literacy--language and texts--through writing than through reading." The input-output idea does not necessarily have to be in this order. Students can be writers first and this may lead them to want to read to discover if others have written like they have: similar ideas, styles, etc. I'd like to add that I too welcome the workshop sessions where we get to read each other's works and provide feedback. As a writer, I welcome the suggestions and questions.
ReplyDeleteElbow's idea about trusting language blew me away. Even while composing a piece i was still trapped by the reading guidelines I was brought up with. To "forge on" is a must to anyone who aspires to be a writer. I did not really like the fifty-fifty approach because there are many more lit classes than writing ones. I can see how it would help a teacher who is covering both subjects, but for purposes of solely teaching writing I like Lindemann's "No Place of Literature" argument better. I’m also not too convinced with advocating against the “gag rule” in workshops because taking criticism with only your writing to defend yourself ensures that you grow as a writer. At least it did for me. Publishing student work is brilliant (Elbow mentions this one). It will show them the ‘start-to-finish’ process and I cannot think of a better way to get these kids to write. Elbow argues we are willing to show our work when we are children, not so much as adults. Fear obviously plays a giant role in this, but if we were eager to show our writing once, all that’s needed is motivation to do it again. Lindemann’s argument of including all subjects in a first-year writing course is excellent. I always thought of writing as a skill that only English majors could seek to master. First year writing courses must show the lower areas of study that writing is universal and extremely valuable. (I’m just kidding on the lower part).
ReplyDeleteI had to put down the Elbow article, about halfway through, in order to finally break into the overwhelming pile of essays I have been putting off grading, that have slowly eaten away at the top of my desk. While doing so, I thought to myself, I really can’t imagine assigning anymore writing. Elbow’s approach as to how to deal with his problem seems to be pretty convincing. (19) If we were to treat writing as we do reading, and be more “flexible” with the way we use writing as an instructive tool, it would be much easier to implement more writing in the classroom. Elbow suggests to “have a whole spectrum of writing,” from high stakes writing assignments, to low stakes writing assignments. The low stakes, informal writing assignments being made up of functioning drafts and private writings, and the high stakes writing assignments being seen through from first draft to publication. Sounds like good stuff to me.
ReplyDeleteElbow suggests we need more writing courses which I do agree with. The fifty - fifty idea seems good, except it would take a delicate schedule of going back and forth to really fulfill the purpose of this method. We need to assign more writing, except who has the time to grade all this extra writing? I appreciated the point that we don't have to necessarily evaluate every single piece of writing; just like with reading, we cannot evaluate every single sentence/paragraph the students read. We have to put writing into perspective and be "flexible".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the fifty-fifty approach. In the last years of my undergrad courses I took some writing classes that used this approach. It got me writing and enjoying what I was doing. We would read many articles that pertained to the subject we were covering, then we would write a piece that somewhat emulated what the author was trying to get at but in our own words. Lindemann even mentions this style in her article. “A better way to teach style is by asking students to examine the texts they encounter in the academy, texts that define a much larger repertoire of rhetorical options than literary language customarily allows.” Elbow’s “gag-rule” is classic. I found myself laughing because it’s very true. But as Leif said above, our MFA program allows the author of the piece to speak after the initial comments of the class.
ReplyDeleteBoth Lindermann and Elbow advocate the idea that writing needs to take a more prominent role in the classroom because as it is, more reading and comprehension assignments are done. However, we can conciously change this disturbing trend by implementing writing assignments/projects that will allow them to stretch their wriring capabilities. The writing tasks themselves should be meaningful and should be sretched across the other content areas. For example, exposing our students to different writing structures, from writing a business letter to a lab report. There arguments are valid because I have witnessed this behavior.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ms. Meisel that we do need more writing in the classroom, but she does make a good point. Who is going to have the time to grade all of that? It is stated that all assignments don’t have to be given the same detailed attention and graded, but as teachers we cannot ignore all writing assignments. We must pay attention to some, or the ones we deem most important, in order to help our students improve their writing. If we implemented the “write and don’t grade” policy for some assignments, will students really put in their best effort? Will they be willing to come up with the best possible way of saying whatever they are trying to say, if it is never to be seen by the teacher? Will self-satisfaction for the students be enough?
ReplyDeleteI believe the point, Sarah, is that the low stakes assignments are opportunities for practice for the high stakes assignments, which will be examined with a critical eye. With that understanding, I believe a student would work har to get as much feedback as possible from their instructor to ensure that when it's their time to write for real, they've got what it takes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as teacher workload is concerened, I'd make my comments brief for the multiple low-stake assignments and increase the depth of feedback as the stakes raise. But all this is assuming teachers are not already overburdened with jam-packed classrooms. This stratgy does seem less feasable in these situations, but that is do to an assembly-line educational system, which is not condusive to learning and critical thinking.
Manuel has a good point. Exposing the students to writing techniques that aren't soley based on English curriculum will not only give the writing meaning, to those students who complain that they'll never need a writing course for a math degree, but will prepare the student for university writing.
ReplyDeleteSarah raises a good point. More writing should be incorporated into the English classroom. However, this is not reality in today's classroom, but I do believe their is a movement to change this. The new EOC standards will help to make writing a more prominent feature in the classroom. It will thus expose our students to a variety of writing modes and hopefully make them stronger writers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with having the students produce low-stake writing assignments and high stakes assignments and like Ms. Meisel mentioned--not have to necessarily evaluate every single piece. The idea is to get students to write. Period. I didn't mention this before, but I also like the idea of publishing the students' work. Elbow does mention that as adults, we tend to lose that "vision and naive grandstanding" and look to our younger selves with "condescension or ridicule" when it come to the enthusiasm we had for writing and the work that we produced.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought of myself as a writing teacher in an English classroom, so I found the instructions about teaching very affirming. My students write very often, without actually responding to any reading. On Monday for example, my students wrote about: "What do you believe in? How far would you go to defend your beliefs?" The journal was to preempt our reading of *The Poisonwood Bible.* So, writing first, then reading.
ReplyDeleteBut I really like Elbow's advice on grading. (I also see that we have an entire reading on scoring later; can't wait.)
To answer the question: Lindemann and Elbow want us to teach writing, by TEACHING writing. Although they differ on their overall approaches, the generalization adheres: more writing courses; more time spent writing; more authentic opportunities for students to write. Writing (output) is the focus, NOT the method by which we interpolate another medium. Writing becomes the mode of understanding, not the reflection of it.
Side note: Sarah's worry about whether students will do the work if only some of it is graded is a valid concern. But, it is not a pedagogical problem. The answer is in discipline (or classroom) management. There are two easy ways to adequately address this issue. (1) Don't tell the students which essays receive a check and which ones receive feedback; the randomness will ensure that students maintain their work ethic (also, a check mark IS a grade, even if only a participation grade). (2) Have students write every day, or very often, and on Friday (or Turn It In Day), have the students staple all their work together (they should have X pieces turned in), but have them put the piece they want graded and feedback on, on top. They get two grades: one for the full feedback piece, and one for completing the in-class work.
Lindemann and Elbow call for the teaching of writing to have the same importance as the teaching of reading and literature. I've seen how reading is privileged over writing at the school where I teach and I remeber placing a strong emphasis on literature when I taught high school English a several years ago. The most benefical portion of Elbow's article is the section where provides ways to include more writing for a wide variety of purposes. Just as students are required to read a variety of texts, then they should also be exposed to many writing opportunites that are not all for high-stakes evaluations. Both believe we are writing too much about reading and not writing enough as an act of language.
ReplyDeleteI like what you're doing in the classroom Andrew. I'm not teaching yet but I hope when I do start that I can follow your strategy dealing with discipline management. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rosa and Ms. Meisel that students should have the opportunity for low-stakes writing. Doing this will take away the pressure school systems have placed on students through state assessments. The state assessments are definitely high-stakes when it comes to promotion to the next grade level and many schools push the high-stakes writing all year as practice for the real testing date. Imagine the pressure students face everyday to write a compostition for a specific topic graded by a specific rubric matching the state assessment.
ReplyDelete"Turn it in Day" is pretty brilliant. I assign quite a bit of writing, but I have my students turn it in when they're done, and it ends up in a bunch of seperate piles all over my classroom. And home office. And vehicle. So having the students write a number of "low-stakes" writing assignments, and then compile them into one "high-stakes" writing assinment, and have them publish their "collection" at the end of the week, makes too much sense. Good stuff Andrew.
ReplyDeleteI wish the blog had a "like" button for comments like Facebook. :D
ReplyDeleteSarah and Rosa, while I agree with what I said, I can't help but mention the importance of response to student writing. For instance if we want them to become better writers, we have to be delicate in how we respond to their writing(s). There is no single best way to respond, but from my experience, different students will find some kinds of comments or more comments in general more useful than others. Feedback is the most important thing we should be doing in a writing course. That is my opinion, but it makes such a difference to the student that they KNOW what they need to be doing for the next assignment. One thing I always keep in mind is that my students are different, and not all of them need the same attention. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish I suppose.
ReplyDeleteHow do Lindemann and Elbow want us to teach writing?
ReplyDeleteLindemann says that in first year literature classes “The teacher talks 75 to 80 percent of the time. Students do very little writing,…” (313) Students write what they are expected to write and are not afforded the opportunity to write about the connection with “real life.” “If we will take the time to appreciate the writing that shapes other disciplines, we can become comfortable with, even confident about, constructing student-centered classrooms,…” (316)
Elbow suggests a fifty-fifty approach (reading-writing) Students are given little tasks to get them to write on something that will later be specifically related to literature. They both enhance each other. I like the idea that using this fifty-fifty approach when teaching literature as a springboard will help students make a connection with real life. This helps them to generate ideas and write more experimentally. The idea that “a great deal is learned”
For as much as I would favor a fifty fifty approach for reading and writing, the actual professor will inevitably lean toward one or the other. Being aware of the benefits, on the other hand, can create a stronger more balanced curriculum regardless which one the professor favors. Even if a professor were to solely rely on reading, if skills are being acquired then the class merits respect. Knowing the skills that each approach provides will definitely aid in the creation and application of more balanced curricula.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Manuel's comment, I am happy to confirm that there are more classrooms that take writing in itself as part of the learning as opposed to an actual reflection on reading/writing. Classroom's like Andrew's and others that I have observed have picked up on the "Writing to Learn" idea and incorporate student's independent thinking. Teachers, for the most part, have a deep desire for their students to learn and if an approach is evidently fruitful, will take it. Yet, the biggest concern that writing brings to the table is already mentioned idea of grading. With the advice of Elbow, Andrew's, and experience itself, one can hope that writing will take a stronger presence in a classroom. I would not like to see a classroom that forgets reading either, but one that knows the difference between the two.
ReplyDeleteBoth these characters are on to something that I feel all English teachers/educators should be on to, and that is to find new ways to teach/pracitce writing. Just as the world is, writing and the ways of it are dramatically changing, so we should think of new ways to teach it, and implement it. Yes, easier said then done, but it seriously needs to start getting "done." Both authors feel more emphasis needs to be put on the actual act of writing. Linndeman says there's too much teacher talk and less student writing.
ReplyDeleteI believe their ideas are sincere, well-thought out, and influential to the future of writing. I'm hoping for new ways of teaching writing and can't wait to see what evolves.