What a thoughtful/thought-provoking piece. The issue of authority is definitely pervasive, not only in this initial piece of writing, but in the way you talk about teaching and your presence in the classroom. To my ears, your inquiry/concern seems to be this: How much should we as teachers control (foreshadow) the outcome of the writing we assign? Certainly, there is value in teaching the formal structures of the genres we ask our students to explore, but is there also room for play and experimentation? What is the value in control vs. play? Where does the balance lie?
Perhaps a caveat to this kind of inquiry is this inquiry: What is our role as writing instructors? To teach forms of writing that students can use in other classes? Or is it simply to introduce students to "the writing life"? (I suppose it doesn't have to be either/or.)
I like how your narrative progression seems to be almost a "Diary of Henry VIII" in your continual pondering over exactly 'how much control' to exert to give the class a discernable form, and forum, and when to back off and allow the organic elements and 'selves' of the students in the class to take over. The "lead a horse to water" example seems particularly salient -- doesn't the phantom hand of the fascist have to at least put their hand to the paper before they can write, barring some Wordsworthian overflow? This topic is particularly fascinating, to me, in harkening back to early 20th century education (factory-style, all desks facing front, one hegemonic 'teacher'), and watching it evolve into Elbow-style freeganism in the 60's / 70's. I feel like you are exploring a potentially pragmatic and fruitful split between the two (far more on the Elbow than on the totalitarian, for sure), though I'm curious to hear where you feel the structure has been beneficial, or non-beneficial. Or, perhaps where does the 'invisible hand' of Erin-style capitalism take over and guide the students in their own work and writing? Perhaps there is something grass-roots to instigate among the students to provoke this 'independent' structure? Or perhaps giving room for their responses to your won supposed 'control' could be a useful exercise in analyzing what power structure and helpful, prescriptive systems are useful, and what aren't?
The 'control' element is definitely fascinating, especially at John Jay where the prescribed 'scaffolds' don't really allow for the students to dictate their own preferences at the level of how they perform their own work. Yet, I wonder if there is a point at which the student's own interaction with your structure could be beneficial, without getting too hippy-dippy, or if there is a research topic in 'flexibility within the structure' that could be of use to you next semester?
My response was too many characters (and I tried cutting down, etc etc, but - to no avail) - I emailed Erin my response to his writings; if anyone else wants to see it, I can definitely forward it on as well!!
Hey Erin,
ReplyDeleteWhat a thoughtful/thought-provoking piece. The issue of authority is definitely pervasive, not only in this initial piece of writing, but in the way you talk about teaching and your presence in the classroom. To my ears, your inquiry/concern seems to be this: How much should we as teachers control (foreshadow) the outcome of the writing we assign? Certainly, there is value in teaching the formal structures of the genres we ask our students to explore, but is there also room for play and experimentation? What is the value in control vs. play? Where does the balance lie?
Perhaps a caveat to this kind of inquiry is this inquiry: What is our role as writing instructors? To teach forms of writing that students can use in other classes? Or is it simply to introduce students to "the writing life"? (I suppose it doesn't have to be either/or.)
Hey Erin,
ReplyDeleteI like how your narrative progression seems to be almost a "Diary of Henry VIII" in your continual pondering over exactly 'how much control' to exert to give the class a discernable form, and forum, and when to back off and allow the organic elements and 'selves' of the students in the class to take over. The "lead a horse to water" example seems particularly salient -- doesn't the phantom hand of the fascist have to at least put their hand to the paper before they can write, barring some Wordsworthian overflow? This topic is particularly fascinating, to me, in harkening back to early 20th century education (factory-style, all desks facing front, one hegemonic 'teacher'), and watching it evolve into Elbow-style freeganism in the 60's / 70's. I feel like you are exploring a potentially pragmatic and fruitful split between the two (far more on the Elbow than on the totalitarian, for sure), though I'm curious to hear where you feel the structure has been beneficial, or non-beneficial. Or, perhaps where does the 'invisible hand' of Erin-style capitalism take over and guide the students in their own work and writing? Perhaps there is something grass-roots to instigate among the students to provoke this 'independent' structure? Or perhaps giving room for their responses to your won supposed 'control' could be a useful exercise in analyzing what power structure and helpful, prescriptive systems are useful, and what aren't?
The 'control' element is definitely fascinating, especially at John Jay where the prescribed 'scaffolds' don't really allow for the students to dictate their own preferences at the level of how they perform their own work. Yet, I wonder if there is a point at which the student's own interaction with your structure could be beneficial, without getting too hippy-dippy, or if there is a research topic in 'flexibility within the structure' that could be of use to you next semester?
-Casey
Hi Erin,
ReplyDeleteMy response was too many characters (and I tried cutting down, etc etc, but - to no avail) - I emailed Erin my response to his writings; if anyone else wants to see it, I can definitely forward it on as well!!
Meira