Naming What We Know + Guide to Composition Pedagogies
Up until this point, I’ve always viewed writing as the act of organizing and expressing ideas without thinking too deeply on its role or how it is taught. This week’s readings introduced ways to expand upon my previous simple understanding of the topic.
In the first chapters of Naming What We Know by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, the act of writing holds multiple meanings and purposes. One idea I found really compelling is that writing isn’t simply the dissemination of information that one already has and simply needs to communicate, but rather it is the process of creating meaning and knowledge by connecting ideas as one writes. Thus while we often focus on the product, the process of writing is itself a commonly overlooked but important component of composition. As somebody who is brainstorming every step of the typically prescribed writing process in which one first outlines, then drafts, and then revises, this idea really spoke to me. Even with an outline, I rarely have a good idea of what I want to say until I’m deep into writing the first draft, and even then by the time I am revising I find new connections and better ways to express my ideas. I didn’t realize until this reading how common that is.
The discussion of how to approach writing in the introduction of Guide to Composition Pedagogies contains some of the reflections on writing that the previous reading did, but with a focus on how to impart knowledge to students on writing. As somebody whose goal is to teach in higher education, my focus has always been on literature rather than composition, so this was really eye-opening. Something I related to was the discussion that rather than hard rules, pedagogies are clusters of approaches to writing studies, and a variety needs to be flexibly implemented to really see success, since no two classrooms are ever the same. A personal interesting takeaway for me was that pedagogy is on some level the message: insofar as the message is that it is worth studying how we teach students and being self-aware teachers willing to learn and evolve the practice to match the needs of those we teach.
Multimodality isn’t a concept that is totally new to me, but the manifesto in Bridging the Multimodal Gap has completely expanded on my previous notions of using ePortfolios and the occasional use of visual elements. An important note the manifesto makes is that multimodality shouldn’t be implemented for the sake of itself, nor should technology be employed when it is not necessary. Rather, mediums should be taught and used in ways that corroborate with the purpose of the writer; it should be a way to support students in their goals rather than something to checkmark off a list. I’ve had experience both as a student and as a classroom aid in which multimodal approaches worked and in which they were failures, and I think the former always occurred when the teacher was cognizant of student needs and limitations. At first I was hesitant to adopt some of the ideas in the manifesto, mostly due to my limited experience of successful multimodal implementation, but the authors of the first chapter raise a good point. If writing studies aren't willing to adapt to the modern world and modern needs of students, it will become outdated. Thus, as a future teacher, being made aware of the constant conversation around teaching and writing studies has been really helpful in making me consider what kind of teacher I would want to be.
Comments