If I had to determine whose side I fell on, I would have to say that the majority of my beliefs as a teacher lean toward David Bartholomae. However, I do think Elbow has some very good theories as well; so I believe both. Some may say that is a cop out, but to be an effective teacher of writing, you must be open to many theories and take from each what will be best for the students.
I agree with Bartholomae when he says that students need to establish power over text first and then add the voice at the end of the writing process. They do need to understand the argument they are presenting in their writing before they can persuade an audience; the synthesis process is pertinent. Once the argument is complete, then it is better understood by all. I also like that he sees the teacher as a manager, in control and in charge. Students need to have that kind of structure in the classroom, especially in writing. The instructor is ultimately the one who is responsible for the class. But I do not like that he sees students within the cultural context. Here is where I agree with Elbow. Students are individuals and need to be comfortable with the writing before they can produce anything worth while. I tend to lean more toward the academic writing than the personal writing because having the foundation in academic writing will allow students to become successful no matter what they do post graduation. The skills are stressed instead of the content.
Bartholomae seems to be teaching students to adapt to the situation, whether it be an academic , social, or personal discourse community. That sounds somewhat like Bizzell, but where she stresses instructor adaptability, Bartholomae emphasizes student adaptability. I must agree that writing should be academic and critical rather than personal. I guess the question is what do students need in order to be successful? Maybe start with personal and expressive writing so students can become comfortable with writing, like Elbow suggests, then move to academic and critical writing which will lead to critical thinking which in turn is needed in any professional setting. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Great presentation Emily - KUDOS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI think that what I liked best about Bartholomae was in what you said about him making students more adaptable. When students leave their educational situation, be it the students you say won't go to college or students that go to college and do not become professional writers (which, let's face it, not many will).
In terms of students being individuals, I do agree with that, but I think that we discover our individuality more effectively when we see how we are also like others in our community or culture. The things that make us unique, in my opinion, are smaller and more easily ignored than the things that make us the same. I feel that, in order to discover those small, special things we need to delve into the culture, take out our uniqueness and then run with it (as fast as we can!).
Shaynee,
ReplyDeleteI, too, liked certain points of Elbow’s theories and certain points of Bartholomae’s. However, I don’t see that as a cop out. In fact, as you have stated, an effective teacher of writing must be open to many theories, even if they outright contradict each other. In fact, as you so eloquently put it, we, as teachers, need to take what portions of these theories we feel would work best in the classroom and build our own methods around them. I think this is the most fundamental and beneficial element we will all get from this class once it is over. Having had the chance to delve into the vast multitude of what theories are out there as far as teaching composition is concerned, we will be able to dissect them and sew together whatever pieces we find useful in order to form our own pedagogy. It would be interesting, in turn, to see what different “monsters” we all create in the end.
Thomas