Naming What We Know + Guide to Composition Pedagogies
“Writing is always ideological because discourses and instances of language use do not exist independently from cultures and their ideologies” (Scott 48). This quote from Naming What We Know nicely summarizes the readings of this week. There is no such thing as neutral writing, and thus there can also be no such thing as teaching writing in a neutral way. So the question that naturally arises is: what stance should we take with our writing, and how should we teach others to write?
In Naming What We Know, writer Tony Scott argues that each social group has a different approach to language, and each individual through writing asserts their own identity by claiming or resisting the styles and beliefs of their own group. There is no universal literacy, and thus no universal way to teach students. Instead, the role of the teacher is to understand who it is they’re teaching, and what sort of social group are they attempting to lead students to? I find the implication must be that those designing education programs must take on the responsibility of the socialization of their students into different groups, some of which are privileged more than others for exhibiting the “correct” approach when it comes to writing.
In A Guide to Pedagogies, the role of the teacher is further questioned in the essay “Critical Pedagogies”, which lays out an argument in favor of democratic teaching that centers the student and focuses social justice, but then also points out that this sort of approach to teaching can be harmful to students. While I appreciate the idea of empowering students through social justice, and believe that teaching students to challenge the status quo is a good exercise in critical thinking, there are problems in writing courses acting as primarily zones of political education. When the concept of social justice is imposed upon students, they are often non-receptive, “unmoved by theoretical critiques from above/outside” (George 85); and in my experience, not only do they not learn the theories, they also reject the writing instruction that comes with it. I think my personal opinions align closely with that of Seitz and Knoblauch, that teachers risk social justice within the classroom becoming an “intellectual game” that does little in the way of actual justice through political action outside of the classroom.
One potential approach to avoid this problem would be to have students try analyzing media through multiple lenses, including critical ones, while allowing students to pick the ones of interest to them. Hopefully this leads students who are interested or curious to reflect upon these theories and their application to their own lives, but those who are not receptive to still be productive members of the classroom.
The readings also gave me further points to reflect upon in regards to teaching. One point that resonated with me was that since “most faculty who taught composition were trained as literary scholars, first-year composition was often a course in writing about literature” (Anson 216). This made me consider how first-year writing courses should prepare students for writing in a plethora of circumstances, and that while teaching students to write about literature could help them indirectly write better for other purposes, perhaps it’s important to center different mediums and different genres that students would encounter. Lastly, I enjoyed the discussion on the problem with overemphasizing product and assessment, which leads to “students [who] are more likely to avoid risking failure for fear of damaging their grades, and this fear works against the learning process” (63 Brooke and Carr). I think failure should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than something that should be punished. It may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe in encouraging a growth mindset within students, so that the process of improvement may be celebrated rather than regarded with hatred.
Comments