reading for 4/28/08

Blog for reading for 4/28/08

Freire, Paulo The Adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom and education and conscientizaCao

This is a highly politicized picture of a literary program that promotes student centered learning. Illustrating the gatekeeping concept by defining the “illiterates” as objects and self-inflicting outcasts from society” If, then marginality is not by choice, marginal man has been expelled from and kept outside of the social system and is therefore an object of violence” (p 620). Freire proposes a new view for educating impoverished and uneducated adults to read and write. Freire uses acculturation and national identity to promote literacy as a means of communication, not just betterment. If educators would be benevolent counselors, they would seek out all of these marginal men to return them in to the society they have been exclude from. Literacy would be the medicine to cure them and return them to the “bosom of happiness by giving them the gift of the word” As Smith ( Student’s goals, gatekeeping, and some questions of ethic) says , if teachers are , in fact, not gatekeepers, they then must bring their teaching to ALL of the students in the population, not just those that come to the teacher (by the admission process of the institution).

Freire refers to these analogies of nourishing and curing as though the illiterate were objects, in a dependent relationship. He demonstrates how this does not fit the reality of the illiterate. He argues that this is contrary to what the people really need. They need to be allowed to find their own meaning in the words. He speaks to much of the same things that Smith speaks to; The culture and context of the student. The context must be meaningful to them and apply to their world.

Freire describes a multiphase process of learning that allows the student (Illiterates) to discover the meaning in the syllable and create their own understanding and sentences as they apply to their “world”. His program opens the learner to citizenship and self exploration. They can now enter into the “lettered” world of the decision-makers. He can now express himself graphically.

I found it necessary to assume that by “man” Freire was meaning “people” He never used any other gendered term and I could only hope that women were not excluded from this program. I also have to continually remind myself of the era in which these essays were written because these concepts are not new to me. I have been studying learner-centered concepts as advocated theory for teaching in adult education, which applies to the freshman college student, even if we want to see them as fledgling adults. In a learning setting of nontraditional students this is even more applicable.

Smith, Jeff Student’s goals, gatekeeping and some questions of ethics

Smith presents a rather macrocosmic ideation of the role of the composition teacher. He argues that as much as the concept of “gatekeeping” has become [believed to be] passé it still exists. Only the students (people) that are qualified for admission to the institution are allowed to be taught. Then, the students must be taught with an “eye to their future…with a sense of civic responsibility to those individuals that the teacher does not nor ever will see.” Whew!

Smith, like Freire, relates students (or illiterates) with joining the higher order of society. He discusses the internal goals of the student. Teachers will either acknowledge this and teach to what the student needs or not acknowledge this and teach what they perceive the student should know. The student, being niave , will not protest as they believe that the teacher knows what they, as students of academia, need to know. (somewhat of a circular argument). The “matter of why students come to college is passed over in silence” (p.101).

He realtes a feminist viewpoint as the nurturing “motherheart” of pedagogy in writing and how this relates to the necessary discipline of the chemistry (or other science) class that the student requires in order to become a good doctor. The process counts for less than the product. The means may or may not justify the ends. We owe it to the student to prepare them for their responsibilities as it relates to the subject/ goal. Smith talks about the teacher’s responsibility to the larger society, and students must be selected, stratified, graded and failed, if necessary to insure the greater benefit of that society. The consumer (sponsor/ profession or as they are now called, stakeholders) of the product (graduate) expects that the institution has prepared them for their purpose.

He argues that the question is not whether or not teachers should be gatekeepers, but that the methods of teaching make gatekeeping rational and fair.

I wonder to whom it will be fair. The argument still exists as to whether the University is a place of research, existential learning for self-enlightenment or a “training ground” for the various consumer professions in the local society; or, simply, a business that requires an enrollment and the teachers must see to it that the student “makes it through” in orser “to keep bums in the seats” (p.315). Nursing has asked this question and researched it from many perspectives. Does the “profession” of Nursing dictate how the student is prepared, is it the licensing board, or the hospitals and organizations that employ nurses? How much responsibility does the writing teacher have to those stakeholders? Why does a nursing student or premed student even need a course in writing or composition? ( I know, I am treading on dangerous ground) If the colleges teach the student how to conduct research in their given field and use “models” of good (published) studies, couldn’t the student learn to write from that? Obviously, as Smith contends the question of how and why to teach writing (across the curriculum) is one that will require continued study, as the value of writing and other means of graphic communication will constantly change as society and the needs of society change. (my interpretation)

Shor, Ira Monday Morning Fever:…

Ira Shor has taken the studies and theories of Paulo Freire and used them to integrate writing with real life themes; In this case work and teachers. Shor uses the title ”Monday Morning Fever” to illustrate the fear teachers and student have of coming to class to face another week of alienation (p.104) Like Freire, Shor advocates teaching writing through topics and themes that have meaning for the student. She has them write about the best jobs and the worst jobs they have had, or their worst teacher. Then, by reading these papers to each other, they discuss and develop ideas for more writing. This pedagogical style is effective because it keeps the students in the forefront and the teacher in the background. It is learner-centered and the “learners” include the teacher. Shor states that the students possess more language skills than they will display in school and using their reality and their language “can release hidden talents”(p.107). Shor presents a system of organization in three steps: Think, itemize, write. Another system that utilizes the student’s language is “dictation sequence” where one student will dictate their thoughts to another who writes everything down. Once the compositions are written the students read them aloud. As the student reads, grammatical and usage correction occurs. What shor calls, “the self-correcting voice”(p.110). This defies the notion that thinking and writing and reading are different and come from different processes in the brain; or this activity utilizes all of these areas of the brain to create “composition” and enhance the writing experience of the student. I am in favor of the later concept. Shor looks at this concept as possible and ego building because people learn to speak long before they learn to write. The “voicing’ method uses an inherent strength to remediate a weakness. In traditional schools learning formal reading and writing creates a disassociation from the rich textual resource of the spoken language ( p111). In some traditional English composition classes the student can be made to feel the he cannot read, write or think correctly without formal reading and writing (I cannot remember in which of these articles I read this.)

The concepts in the three essays discussed thus far reflect back on the theories from the mid nineteenth Century rhetoricians that we read about in the early essays. The psychological theories from Bain and what Kinneavy wrote about with Genre theory “cultural/historical activity theory”; Students writing about personal experiences.

Whereas I agree that writing from their personal context creates more meaning for the student, I can see that discussing some topics could be difficult for some students. If a student discovers that they are in a minority of political or religious beliefs, they may feel intimidated. If they write about something extremely personal, not realizing it will be discussed, they may be embarrassed. In some respect it may be wiser for the teacher to present either a topic or some parameters on topics. But that brings up the issue of limiting the creativity of the students, or worse the teacher putting forth their own political or religious agenda.

I had to laugh when I read Harriston’s essay on diversity, ideology and teaching writing in light of my last comments. Harriston is writing about her Chair address to the CCCC in 1985. She looks at where the profession composition and writing has been, Is, and where it is going. She seems to be very concerned abot the teachers’ personal agendas and platforms in their writing classes. She is sure the teachers will poison the minds of our naïve’ and innocent freshman. She discusses the fact that teachers have an uncensored capability to use the classroom for their own agendas and this would be very detrimental to the growth and development of these students as writers. She gives examples of the various theorists that, she believes, are advocating using the classroom to impart ideology and politically charged wisdom. Some believe that it is their responsibility to get the students to understand how they are oppressed and socially victimized and write about rebellion and rejecting the status quo. Harriston’s views make me wonder if English departments are where people (as teachers) go when they can’t get into the POLI SCI Dept. Personally, If I had had any teacher that was putting forth their own political or religious agenda in my classes, I would have left the class. I sometimes have a little trouble with the discussion of the politics of English departments in this class. I am not involved and not interested in this, but I am in the minority, so I guess I am a little intimidated. I accept it as a learning opportunity of a part of the University that I am not familiar.

Berlin speaks to the same thing, Ideology in the classroom. His essay brings together the writings of the other authors, namely Freire and Shor. He looks at the various theories that have developed over the decades in teaching writing (science vs. expressionistic vs. social-epistemic) He relates how ideology is in all thought and experience. It is what gives value and meaning to everything. His discussion helped me understand what is meant by “epistemology”.

Harriston criticizes Berlin for his “neutrality”, but I think she puts forth a very strong and negative viewpoint of the various theorists’ intentions. Berlin puts forth excerpts of the other theorists in the context of their theories on rhetoric, but does so with far less bias. I interpret him to be more open minded and objective as to the different viewpoints on rhetorical ideology. He presents many opinions on ideology in the classroom and the influences on the students, the teachers and the institutions for preparing the students to write.

As a new learner of composition theory, I am still uncommitted in my opinion on how writing should be taught, what makes good writers, and whether or not any of it can be demonstrated statistically (scientifically). I am sure it is a question that will always exist. I do agree, however, that the student’s needs must be addressed from the student’s perspective, not the teacher’s. Why is the student in college and what are their goals. Not that the writing class can teach each student how to write for each discipline, but, rather, help the student find the path to that writing and others; Present various ways to develop writing skills.