It seems worthwhile to begin with this very large quote from an article by David Russell, the reading of which marked a turning point in my own thinking about teaching introductory writing courses:
To try to teach students to improve their writing by taking a GWSI [general writing skills instruction] course is something like trying to teach people to improve their ping-pong, jacks, volleyball, basketball, field hockey, and so on by attending a course in general ball using. Such a course would of necessity have a problem of content. What kinds of games (and therefore ball-use skills) should one teach? How can one teach ball using skills unless one also teaches student the games, because the skills have their motive and meaning only in terms of a particular game or games that use them? Such a course would have a problem of rigor beacuse those who truly know how to play a particular game would look askance at the instruction such a course could provide (particularly if the instructor did not herself play all the games with some facility). It would also have a problem of unrealistic expectations, because it would be impossible to teach all -- or even a few -- ball games in course. finally, it would be extremely difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of a course in general ball using because one always evaluates the effectiveness of ball using within a particular game, not in general. Ways of using a ball that work well in one game (e.g., volleyball) would bring disaster in another (such as soccer).
From David Russell's, "Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction." In Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction. Joseph Petraglia, Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 51-78.
For me, Russell's metaphor (and re-think about the cognitive uses of metaphor when we read the Phil Eubanks article later in the semester). I'd like us to discuss in more detail Russell's idea that generalized writing skills cannot be taught. I'd also like us to think and talk about the idea in the "big picture people" article that a metaphor for social context (how social systems, experiences and knowledges) shapes genres and writing acts should NOT be as a container (interactions -- like the production and reception of a text -- are not "contained" by a certain social system), but rather should be as the warp and woven of a woven garment (deeply embedded and actually and instrinsic part of textual interactions between people). Russell and Yanez discuss this idea on p. 336 of the "Big Picture People" article.
I also think the Ketter and Hunter article, "Creating a Writer's Identity...", is important for us in its discussion of how students can (or might) use the "opportunity space" of first year writing to consider the nature of school writing -- and whether or not we can even hope to combat the academic bias against "experiential knowledge" (as Erin puts it on p.325 of the article). Do you think this bias exists? If we think about a genre studies/activity theory approach to first year writing, what does it do (or not do) to break down this barrier, or to re-define student's ability to understand the gaps and relationships between "school writing" and disciplinary or professional writing situations? This also ties to the Russell Yanez article and their descriptions of how professors and students can/might/should negotiate, define and illuminate the goals and constraints of disciplinary writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment