Hi everybody, looking forward to my first time blogging
experience and using this as a forum for enlightenment for teaching
English!
After the first week of classes, it seems that this semester
will challenge us to take all we have learned about teaching English so far,
and think about how we will apply it in the professional world. We may ask
ourselves what we value about both English and teaching and what we may not.
Especially important to me, since starting at UIC, has been how drastically my
values for writing and literacy have changed. In 486 last summer, I discovered
that writing could change my life for the better because it allowed me to
reflect and make sense of things like nothing else can. I could think in one
way about something, then see it completely different several pages later. By
constantly asking ourselves, "what does it all mean?" I think writing
lets us explore the world in ways that can ultimately bring us peaceful
connections and deeper understandings. This how I've tried to begin answering
the question we'll be exploring all semester long and beyond: Why Teach
English? Hopefully it segways into Smagorinsky somewhat gracefully.
I think Smagorinsky is trying to point out the qualities for
deep learning that free writing and discussion have when students engage in
exploratory talk. He says, "Since ideas are not being offered as finished
products for final approval, the discussion allows its participants to inquire
and grope toward meaning (11)." He also says, "A constructivist
approach includes informal opportunities for students to write freely as a way
to find what they have to say without concern for submitting the finished
product for approval. Used in this way, writing serves as a tool for learning,
part of the student's tool kit for constructivist thinking (11)." Here,
Smagorinksy sees discussion and writing as being beyond objective because they
lead to more truthful things like learning and discovery. I completely agree
with his insights here and aspire to be a teacher that can lead students to see
this power in language.
However, I also see tremendous value in what I consider to
be final draft speech, which somewhat differs from Smagorinsky's notion. I
don't think it's about rejecting bad ideas, certainty, authoritativeness, or teacher
approval, (10) but more so making one's own writing readable to others. Others
can not see our expressions in writing the way we see them unless they are
presented clearly and pointedly. The revisions that go into this, indeed, do
not enlighten us as a freer, more spontaneous form of writing does. Yet, they
make our ideas more accessible to others. If we wish to have an audience hear
us and read our words, we have to consider and respect their time,
understandings, and patience. To me, these are some of the things that final
draft speech accomplishes.
Warren,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful insight into the text, but also into the way you're approaching the semester. I like especially that you use your time at UIC in the EE program to give a frame of reference for making sense of what you've come to understand the teaching of English to be about. What does it mean to realize that your earlier perceptions and ideals are no longer ones that you hold? The way in which you approach the text, and synthesize some of Smagorinsky's big ideas, helps give insight into the larger conversation about why we teach English without falling into the trap (as we've talked about in class) of simply re-iterating trite or feel-good cliches.
I wonder if Smagorinsky is suggesting that final draft speech doesn't have value? I thought more that he was calling attention to the kind of environment that ignores the plurality of speech acts, and how they mean in social contexts (which the focus in education has done for a long time). For example, if you and I have an argument, chances are you can make your point without going through the motions of final draft speech. But, if you're trying to make a point, say, in an interview, you'll hopefully have done a good deal of preparation that informs your final draft speech. It's not as if one form of of "writing" or "speaking" is necessarily opposed to the other. The question is, maybe, more about what happens when we only emphasize the final draft element without calling attention to the many uses of language (ie "text" speak) and how it can be effectively utilized so as to make clear, relevant points.
Thanks for the interesting read!