- What role does writing play in learning (or vice versa)?
- What are the purpose(s) of first-year writing classes? What role(s) do you think they should play in students' lives and in the life of the university?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Writing and Learning
What are your initial responses to the following two questions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What role does writing play in learning? Being able to come up with and idea isn't difficult. We've been doing it since we were children. Putting the idea down on paper, ofcourse I'm an MFA'er, is power. Just look at Mein Kampf. The information your attempting to learn isn't solid while it's in your head. It's concrete when placed on paper. Mastery of a subject/lesson/idea, etc. come when you teach it to someone else. I believe it also comes when your can, clearly, put it into words. (Again, i'm in the MFA).
ReplyDeletePurpose of a first-year writing class? There are many factors that hinder proper learning in public schools. I'm not tossing any blame here. Life isn't fair. When a student is enrolled in the first-year writing class hopefully, since the College setting is more learner friendly, he/she will learn how to improve their writing. This will help the student in every subject, well maybe not Math. It'll be a base structure for University writing. Not to mention assist him in applying for scholarships, internships and jobs. I'm basing this observation on my experience in my highschool.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought as to what role writing plays in learning has to be that of writing as a form of communication. It allows for newly learned knowledge (or theory) to be expressed as a tangible piece of information--Some kind of proof that the learner has in fact learned.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the first year writing course, I feel, is to give the learner the ability to communicate in a new language. The language of academia. It allows the learner to become familiar with the discourse that is thrown around at the university level, learn that academic language, and then stir it into their own writing, proving that they in fact learned it.
I'm not sure that even made sense...
I have always believed that writing is a process, an ongoing process which can be facilitated in a number of ways through a number of subjects. As we discussed in class, learning is also a process which can be built upon, remodeled, or completely taken down. The role writing plays in learning would have to do with the product of what has been learned, which can accumulate and evolve at different levels, depending on the learner's experiences. Once someone has learned something, you would think they would automatically be able to articulate that back to someone, or be able to explain in words what they learned. But that is not always the case. Since writing is a process, the experience or lack of experience the learner has with writing may not effectively communicate what they actually learned. The same with speaking, if the student doesn't have the pragmatics to effectively communicate their knew knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't learn anything, it could mean they don't have the social skills to express what they learned.
ReplyDeleteAs far as first year writing classes are concerned, many university students are in for a rude awakening. The purpose of first year writing classes should emcompass many areas since most students K- 12 learned to write through formulas, and what was required of them on the standardized tests. This is the case with any high stakes test - the teachers end up teaching to the test with little time for anything else. The course should involve all types of writing, theories of writing, reading, group activities and most importantly, professor modeling. Thinking out loud as you model and write would be extremely effectives so that the students' would be able to pick up on the thought processes they need to write successfully. Interestingly, at the college level, you are basically writing in all of your classes, except for maybe College Algebra. But besides that, students in general are always going to be writing papers. And for most of them, that is a shock. So the first year writing class would play a crucial role in helping them learn to write in a way that will help them become successful undergrad students, among other things.
1. In order for learning to take place, a structure of communication has taken place. When the learner has conceptualized, reflected, and comprehended what has been essentially “taught”, communication between the producer of the knowledge (no matter what it may be) and the receiver (one who has just learned) has just occurred. Writing is a form of communication. To write is to express ideas, share anecdotes, or to reveal lessons and experiences. Writing about the previously stated is to write about what has been learned/experienced.
ReplyDelete2. First-year writing classes, I believe, are set up to prepare the student for the basics of writing. Inevitably in all classes and disciplines, different forms of writing will be required, and first-year writing classes are beneficial for the student to have knowledge of basic writing skills. I believe all disciplines should required a first year writing course; of course with the exception of those who may be exempted from such a course. It’s only natural for many to fear writing, but at some point, they got to realize they’ll have to use the skills of writing no matter what the discipline.
I believe that, as opposed to oral communication, written communication is the most challenging. The writer has on shot at getting his thoughts, ideas/information to the reader. How well the reader receives and de-codes the information, ultimately lies on how well the writer communicated. This not only facilites learning but, reinforces verbal and written communication. I believe that when this is accomplished with first year writing students, and I would even say that especially with many Hispanic students, they may be more motivated to pursue their education beyond a four year degree.
ReplyDeleteFor true learning to take place, we need more than one mode of input. My students often complain about all the note-taking they have to do and all the extension they have to include on written portions of assignments. I tell them simply reading the subject matter is not enough nor is hearing my highligts on the chapter readings and historical processes of different civilizations. They have to write about it which I believe truly helps them get the content in and gives them opportunity to practice their attempt at written communication. So, they read it, they hear, and they write about it--3 ways to understand the material in a highly content-driven class.
ReplyDeleteA 1st year writing course at the university level is about as important as the 1st year of kindergarten, middle school, or high school. The 1st year for any of these is crucial in the shaping of success and personal identity. For 1st year college students a writing course establishes the expectations of writing in an academic setting without using the formulas they may have acquired as a result of state assessement that begin in elementary school. A 1st year writing course may serve as a sort of transition to entering Freshmen who are trying to find their footing for the next four years.
I agree that written communication is pretty difficult, but I don't know that it's any more difficult than oral communication, especially for people who are not used to speaking in front of others on more formal occasions such as public or classroom presentations. The two go hand in hand. If you can express yourself well on paper, then you can express yourself pretty well in front of a group people--but only if you practice, unliess you have a natural skill for public speaking. In writing a paper you might only have an audience of 1, but with oral presentation the audience may be larger than you expect.
ReplyDeleteAlthough writing in itself is not essential for learning, it can produce an insight that otherwise is not possible. The way I see it, writing helps make an otherwise abstract idea in one’s head become tangible by the simple act of arranging it in words. Exactly how it works, I am not sure, but I see writing as a way of “creating” knowledge by making abstract ideas concrete. Therefore, writing does only communicate but it constructs knowledge.
ReplyDeleteIf one is to teacher writing, then one must allow students to create knowledge from writing in any type of circumstance. The problem that high schools presently face is the fact that one state test is making all English classes write under only one essay style that may not suit the needs of every requirement that students will face in their college classes and as members of society. A first year writing class, then, must entice the student to write to learn, as opposed to have some type of magical “style” of writing that will suit all needs. Many times as writers, we do not start with a style in mind. This very writing in itself is not the result of a “persuasive” or “expository” style from high school, but from the very idea of creating an answer that both satisfies a need from my class, and also helps me understand what a first year writing class needs.
With this in mind, a student in first year writing should be given the tools to write in different contexts and for different purposes. That is easier said than done. One style seems to already be difficult enough to high school students so as to simply “liberate” them and introduce new ways of writing in four months. In my eyes, that is the main job of a first year writing teacher: liberating a student from the many chains that English teachers set on them to pass a useless TAKS test (in a bitter sweet relationship, that is my job). Therefore, a first year writing class should include assignments that give students tools like producing a written close reading, analyzing a given rhetoric implemented in an article, pointing out a historical line of events in a given frame of time, sourcing information, and many other techniques that are more universal to any style of writing than the current Texas “personal narrative” that students write to graduate from high school.
This post just might make it in on time!
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, I the question came to me as a joke, because what we're ultimately asking ourselves is "What to we know about knowledge?"
In formal logic, every syllogism begins with an assumption, or premise that is accepted before be can come to a conclusion about concepts. And what I gathered through today's exercise was that it is fundamental for a learner to first conceptualize the idea of the thing being learned, which necessitates awareness of a lack of knowledge - a la the Socratic Method (I think this is the exact quote) "True knowledge comes only from knowing that we know nothing." And if a student doesn't accept that, then the class room and the teaching and the course material all become a formality, an obstical between the student and his her degree.
Therefore, if I were to describe the process of learning is would begin as such : 1) the awareness of one's lack of knowledge in a subject; 2) conceptualizing new information; 3) testing and correcting the developed concept; 4) apply new concept in critical conditions.
That's my two cents...
Apparently I can't edit my comments, so I'll answer the questions more specificaly in this post.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I see a freshman composition student at the writing center, he/she tends to be pretty apathetic about their assignments. What I've come to theorize is that by in large, students don't feel this way because they're lazy or don't care. In fact, some have not been shy in telling me they think it's a waste of their time. Then he has to respond to a text...
At least in the case of essay writing, composition courses can teach people have to participate in a critical conversation in which there is pretty much just one speaker. So, it challenges a writer to sustain a consistently coherent thought with a clear purpose and use. It's a means of communicating for the benefit for those who can't talk back or so that they won't need to. You have the personal response, the summary, the analysis, etc.
By writing one's thoughts on paper, the idea can be universally examined, because it has be captured, unlike verbal communication which in usually not recorded or eloquent. Writing is a skill that enables crafting communication overtime, where as verbal communication is largely trying to correcting itself.
If a first-year writing class can establish the necessity of this skill to students, then they will be much more likely to continue developing that skill and incorporate it as they study their areas of interest.
Writing is an important aspect of learning; it may be the strongest form of communication. It could even be said that writing is the basis of learning; when the student is able to put what he/she has learned onto paper, it becomes clear that the student has mastered the material, meaning the teacher was successful in his/her explanation.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the first-year writing course is to give the student the ability and power to be able to communicate through written words effectively, at least that’s what I like to think; however, more likely it is to give the student a brief overview (because there are too many topics to discuss thoroughly) of what is expected of them as far as academic papers, grammar, structure, etc.. The purpose is also to introduce the student to various types of readings, which hopefully will broaden the students’ views and help them mold their own writings into better works throughout all course subjects. I think the first year writing course should play a huge part of the students lives because if it is taught properly (and if the students are willing to put in the effort) it serves as the basis for all academic subjects; it is one course that I believe is crucial no matter what the student’s are of study is (of course, that is why it is required).
First Question:
ReplyDeleteAs a high school English teacher, I have seen first hand the discomfort my peers have with regards to teaching the writing component of an English course. Most are comfortable with teaching the literature aspect of the course. Unfortunately, writing is the forgotten child of most English classes.
It is integral that we as educators teach proper grammatical practices to our students so that they can express themselves clearly and logically. Moreover, it is through writing that we can express ourselves to the fullest because we don't have to worry about our voices being silenced. Writing also permits us to experiment with its different modes and structures. Learning is constantly occurring because the written form is always evolving.
Question Two:
I believe first year writing courses at universities are structured so that they build upon what was learned in high school. Students should already possess certain writing practices that will enable them to meet success in these courses. The first year course in turn prepares the student for the rigors of the English courses that follow. These courses are integral to the success of the student in the university because writing is an essential component to every course. One must be able to write effectively, so that one is taken seriously.
ROLE OF WRITING IN LEARNING: I think writing is crucial to good learning. People sometimes learn without writing, sure. But they could have learned better by having incorporated writing into their processes. Recent brain science has shown that the act of writing -- having a student explain why the quadratic equation works, or why copper(II) chloride burns green, or Washington's strategy for crossing the Delaware, or even writing an error-proof essay -- requires the dendrites in the brain to stretch and make connections across traditional cognitive areas and the hemispheres. This means increased brain function, increased creativity, increased retention, and increased ability to use the acquired information authentically. All because a student wrote the information down. I'd say that is a significant breadth between learning without and learning with writing. This information may be found in The ACTS of Teaching by Joyce Armstrong Carroll, although she is really citing the original studies.
ReplyDelete1ST YEAR WRITING CLASS: The purpose of a first-year writing course should be to train students in the craft and technique of academic and argumentative (rhetorical) writing. This type of writing is a skill (not philosophically, but practically) different from other forms of creative expression, including creative nonfiction. The course should teach students the philosophy of rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) and a number of syntactic devices often used effectively in expertly written scholarly work: anaphora, epistrophe, synecdoche, asyndeton. The class should also review the perils of plagiarism, and correct methods for citing sources. Finally, the class should master methods for synthesizing ideas across disciplines to build complex arguments.
EXTRA THOUGHTS: (1) These questions are difficult, undoubtedly on purpose, because they highlight some of the difficulties of education: incredibly passionate educators with wildly differing pedagogical philosophies. Between the blog responses and the comments in class, I heard everything from the case against standardized testing (while Dr. Charlton said she was part of the revamping of the program into STARR), to proponents of drill and kill and rote practice sessions. For this reason, education is not only difficult to do, but a political minefield, too. (2) I think it is rare, although not unique, to find a skill that is necessary only for college. In class, and in the blog, we mentioned preparing students for writing in college. But that reach is too short (sometimes too long, as not all students go to college). The application for skills needs to reach beyond the scope of academia -- comparatively few people opt for a life of scholarly work, so the reasons people should write need to have far more important implications than "It will help you in college." For example, many job applications require an essay, including Boeing and the California Highway Patrol (can you imagine Ponch from CHiPs writing an essay!). This information is available in an article title, I believe, "Writing Next," and it is available for free if you do a Google search for it.
Andrew cautions us against thinking too shortsightedly, and that is a good warning. As I said in my syllabus, first-year composition is almost always called on to do all things for all people--and it can't. So, what can it do? Of course, we can try to prepare students to learn the language of the academy, but is that enough? It might (and I stress MIGHT) help students write an essay exam that will get them a better grade, but how will it help them beyond the walls of the classroom? And do we care if it does? All of these questions--and more--will be at the heart of our discussions for the next few weeks, so I want to encourage you to keep letting them swirl around in your head.
ReplyDeleteI've had serious discussions with some of the teachers at my school because i do not believe that college is for everyone. I wish everyone had the motivation to, at least, attend one semester, but i know it's not going to happen. Jonikka said first-year composition can't do all things for all people. So what do we do? Is it so wrong to say that we should focus on those who we can help? I know it sounds terrible, but no matter how hard we try we cannot reach them all. What do we do then? I've strayed from the topic i know, but i haven't become a teacher for this reason. I guess i'm looking for an answer.
ReplyDelete1.
ReplyDeleteI think writing is just one of the many parts of learning. I think it is very important in itself on how it is applied. But then again not everything learned is through writing. I didn’t truly find my voice in writing till I was finishing up my undergrad college work. I was so programmed to write a certain way in elementary and high school that I couldn’t write rather simple papers in my first years of college. I tried applying what I learned as a grade school student to my work but it never seemed correct. I learned through trial and error applying what my first year college writing classes taught me so I was able to limp along. I think that writing does play a very important part in learning in ways that the student working on his or her work gets to see what he or she is writing and that they are able to revise and reapply it to their work. Writing is a stepping stone to something greater in a students learning life.
2.
I think the purpose of first year writing classes is to see if the students have learned the basics of writing in their grade schooling. To me, this is to find the weakness and help teach the students how to correct them so that they are able to survive the rest of their college career and beyond. I think the roles of these classes are necessary in the student’s life and that of the university because not all kids come out of grade school knowing the basics of proper writing. I know I didn’t and was in fact rather terrified in having to take such a class as an undergrad. But because of it I learned what I sadly should have learned in high school. And depending on the teacher, the students may or may not automatically find their voice in writing but rather evolve into it.
What role does writing play in learning? Some of what I planned to say has already been mentioned above. We know that writing is an expression of our thoughts, feelings, needs, etc. It can be informal as in journal writing or formal scholarly writing--either way it is a method we use to express ideas, knowledge, concepts that we have learned or felt. I like how someone mentioned that knowledge becomes a tangible product once it hits paper. (paraphrasing there) Learning comes through the process of writing. We find ourselves repeating what we learned, reaching into our minds and forming ideas to argue,prove or defend a point. Sometimes we realize we knew more than what we gave ourselves credit for. I'm an optimist at heart so I like to think that writing goes hand in hand with learning. One complements the other.
ReplyDeleteThe optimist in me says: the purpose of a first year writing class is to prepare a person to articulate ideas properly, spare embarassment in a college/university setting and simply provide them with a means of communication they know exists but may feel inadequate in carrying out. We know that no 2 writers are alike. A first year writing class should allow the individual to develop their skills without becoming a carbon copy of the professor/teacher. I believe in being unique, finding your voice, yourself and showing that uniqueness in your writing. Albeit it is difficult to accomplish somedays--myself included--but it can be done...we simply peel back the layers until we reach the core and then work on polishing and maintaining that core--our writing style/voice. That's all I have. Peace Out!
ReplyDeleteI want to chime in again.
ReplyDelete>> It is a misinterpretation of initiatives like NCLB that our goal is to send every student to college or university. Rather, we are to prepare them for the next level of education so, should they choose to go to college, they are ready for it (i.e., not deficient in knowledge or skills).
>> It is not desirable for all students to go to college. And we should be allowed (encouraged?) to say this out loud. At least, we shouldn't feel guilty for thinking it. Let me approach this from another angle. We are encouraged, sometimes instructed, to account for Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. The result is differentiated lesson plans and strategies to reach students whose main intelligence is not listen-assimilate-reproduce. So why would we expect all students to go to university, which is an institutional intelligence that does not encompass all the multiple intelligences? At the very least, we are setting up some students to struggle through their degree. At its worst, we are ruining a student's ability to cash in earlier (or perhaps at all) on his or her intellectual strengths. Connected to this is Thomas Stanley's book *The Millionaire Next Door.* An astounding percentage of self-made millionaires have only "some college." As anyone graduating in the last two years can tell you: it ain't the sheepskin that gets you the job -- it's you. We might as well ask ourselves "What is the purpose of education?" Is learning the purpose of our education system? Or is the purpose something closer to preparing individuals to be productive members of society, in which case a scale of earned income and longevity in the marketplace is a better yardstick than degrees earned. Teachers and professors are productive members of society by volunteering to prepare those following for productive membership -- it's a chicken and egg thing, for sure.
>> Finally, what we know changes. Educators (any profession, really) do the best they can with the information they have. Sometimes we have to remodel our knowledge blocks. It is lamentable that we may not have gotten the education we think we should have. Poor education can probably be reduced to two very different problems: bad teachers and bad pedagogy. Fixing bad teachers has stymied the profession and is the source of much political and social consternation. But, bad teaching has nothing to do with whether the material being taught is sound or lacking (e.g., whether Whole Language or Phonics is the better course -- a good teacher can do wonderful things no matter the syllabus). Bad pedagogy, on the other hand, is likely a result of fads and politics. As soon as teachers and administrators know better, they move on to the next program or strategy that will save us. Twenty years from now, we'll bang our heads and worry about the students we ruined back in 2011: If we had only known THEN (now) what we know NOW (future us)!
I agree with Manuel- that “first year writing courses at universities are structured so that they build upon what was learned in high school.” However, I also think the first year writing classes are forced to teach what was not learned in high school. It is true that students should have proper knowledge of writing by the time they reach college, but I’m sure that is not always the case.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on the whole "is college for everyone?" idea, I would have to say that no it is not. Encouragement to pursue a higher education should be in place, but then we run into the whole "you can lead a horse to water" philosophy. Furthermore, as was said above, I don't believe that every student leaving high school and jumping into a university is the goal of K-12 education. Instead, school should just be seen as a preparatory stage for life thereafter--whether the next stage be university, trade school, or a career.
ReplyDeleteI guess the best example of how this works could be seen in the career and technology courses offered at the high school level (i.e. Auto Tech, Small Engine Repair, A/C Repair, etc.)I don't know any strong statistics, but I would imagine that a substantial amount of students who are really interested in these classes, become interested because they have already decided that college is not for them (or a counselor has decided for them). Knowing this, it is our job as educators to offer an alternative to college that would still prepare (hopefully) the student for life after the run from Kindergarten through High School.
Andrew, I agree with all the points that you made about writing and learning. It is important that educators expose our students to good writing (modeling samples). We need to demonstrate to our students what comprises good writing by exposing them to syntactical elements. Teaching effective writing strategies should start at the elementary level and be built upon by each subsequent level that follows.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Richard said about college not being for everybody, but don’t fully agree with what he said about the students in career and technology courses. I was one of those career and technology students. (Auto-Tech and Welding) In fact, being in these classes only made me want to pursue higher education. I also agree with what Andrew and Manuel said about knowledge changing and the importance of teachers presenting good writing examples to students in order to start building their knowledge on a sturdy foundation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that oral and written communication go hand in hand. You're right public speaking can and is nerve wracking. Having had quite a bit experience at it, I can say that one never quite gets used to it. I always get nervous speaking in front of a group. I just meant that when speaking, one has the opportunity to clarify or restate what is being said. In written form, the writer has the burden of clearly stating what he/she intends to communicate. I guess that's why in literature there are so many interpretations? Does the reader ever really know the writers intent? I don't know that that is always important. Maybe that's one of the things that makes poetry interesting, but then there are times when there is only one meaning and if not stated properly... Anyway, that's my thought on that.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the blog, I wanted to respond to Richard with pretty much what “rtijerinaz” said. Yet, in thinking about different types of learners (humans), it made me realize exactly what Dr. Charlton meant by the project being too difficult. Writing in itself is so broad that we cannot expect every student become an English major, but we can aspire for a balance.
ReplyDeleteAs a high school teacher, I can attest to the fact that a year, and much less a semester, is not enough time to make a substantial change or development on a student. Maybe I should be more optimistic, but I have realized that I have done a better job by making sure that few skills are well learned than losing confidence by not achieving every part of a very heavy curriculum. I believe in rigor and bringing critical thinking to the classroom, but I also realize that there are limitations in a year span.
If educators are in the role of taking the horse to water, as Andrew has suggested, that implies that the horse is actually thirsty. I read once in an article about education (I think it was Debrah Brandt too) that addressed the analogy about the catterpillar turning into a butterfly. The implication is not that the catterpillar wants to change. But what if turns out the caterpilliar hates flying?
ReplyDeleteWe should be aware that what exalting the idea of education creates a schizm between "intellectuals" and "regualar people" that implies that there is something wrong with someone who decides not to go to college. The entire point of public school is to raise every generation of Americans with enough knowlege and awareness to be a productive member in a democracy. Beyond that, idealy, higher-education is suposed to lead to a career in advancing a field of study, not simply as a pre-requisite for a demanding job market.
But we find that almost every student is here exactly with that intention, to rise up in socio-economic status. Is this a dilemma that we can honestly address just by revising our pedigogical practices? Is that ethical to reduce education to a part of the assemply-line?
It seems to me that as repsonsible educators, our chief role is to provide opportunities for students to learn for themselves, and therefore empowering them to apply what they are learning personally or professionaly, emphasis on empowerment. That way, the students are educated enough to decide on their own when they are thirsty.
I don't think an educator's role is to lead the horse to water. That isn't nearly engaging enough. Tons of research (see Kagan, Marzano, Bloom, et al) shows that the best practices involve high levels of engagement.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I wasn't exalting education. I said our current system of education does not account for the Multiple Intelligences (see Howard Gardner) of a diverse society. There is a certain type of person who succeeds more by going to college, than not. Many students succeed probably about the same. And a few succeed less than they would have by not going to college at all. (This is a complete digression from the original topic, but I think it's interesting to see where the conversation has gone.)
I believe education -- true, unadulterated learning and personal improvement -- has been broken. Much of this, I think, is the result of our worship of data. We are "data-driven." That's a maligning of our stated educational goals (see TEA's TEKS). Instead, we should be purpose-driven and data-informed (that's my line, don't steal it :-D ). Our righteous pursuit of higher data to report has made the grade the achievement. Ouch! My academic Jiminy Cricket just croaked. Grades are not achievements. Too bad we have perverted the system to make it seem so. Rather, learning or mastering a skill is the achievement -- and grades should be a reflection of the achievement. But exalting the grade over mastery is a bastardization of educational purpose (see Richard Lavoie, Alfie Cohn, Steven Covey).
And remember, things change. Education was not always compulsory. Then it was not always compulsory to 18 years old. The engine that drives the education system has economic and political pistons (probably the oldest pistons, actually), alongside knowledge and skills pistons. Modern educators are more than content instructors, too. They are motivators, sometimes therapists, college and career advisers, and so on. It's not enough to wait for a student to realize he or she is thirsty for knowledge. It may be too late for them to catch up. We begin education early, before they want it, so that when their dreams and aspirations catch up, they aren't lacking (we hope) in the knowledge and skills they need to achieve those goals. (This is what I understand Leif to have said in his last paragraph. And I agree.)
One last thought: the schism between educated and uneducated is not new. And I agree that the elitist bigotry that esteems one group over another is unjust, for the most part. I am an educator. I believe in a life-long pursuit of ideas and personal improvement (not relegated to official institutions of learning). If those who don't go to college languish in uneducated stagnation (or for those who don't learn anything after graduating college), then I do think they have chosen to exacerbate that schism.
Here's a statement/comment I found interesteing..."What is the purpose of education?" Is learning the purpose of our education system? Or is the purpose something closer to preparing individuals to be productive members of society, in which case a scale of earned income and longevity in the marketplace is a better yardstick than degrees earned."
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I have to tend to agree with the "...preparing individuals to be productive members of society...". In the end, no four-year degree is truly better than the other. These days, a Bachelor's is just a Bachelor's. No big deal!! Every major goes through the same basics, a few electives, then a few classes specified in the content. A four-year education allows individuals the ticket to become a part of the working society.
I agree with what Andrew said with regards to the high stakes testing. When it comes down to it, that is all the teacher is really going to focus on. Test scores. If their kids are low in their benchmark scores, teachers tend to automatically drop their well - intended curriculum and start teaching to the test.
ReplyDeleteI heard the new STARR test was going to require 7th graders to write only a one page paper. Can you imagine how sad that is? 7th graders will walk out only knowing how to write one page because that's what their teacher was driven to teach so they could pass the test. It gets worse every year.
When I was just a wee lad in middle and high school, the 5-paragraph essay model (Intro-Body x 3-Conclusion) was what my teachers beat into my mind as the only possible way to defeat the writing portion of the TAAS test. Once I was out of there, it took me years to understand that a piece of writing could in fact have more or (dare I say) less than 5 paragraphs. Who knows what this STARR test will do to students...
ReplyDeleteWow...depressing. And it falls upon higher education to help students un-learn what they were taught. I see it all the time at the writing center.
ReplyDeleteBTW Andrew - My earlier statements about taking the horse to water I think were in agreement with your overall argument. My intention was simply to extend the metaphor to other consequences. Personally, I think training for standardized testing is like taking the horse to a river of stale ale for about seven years.