Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:53:54 -1000
From:         James Shimabukuro <JAMESS@UHUNIX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Standard English

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992, David E. Schwalm wrote:

> When a course is required of all
> students in a university, there ought to be agood reason for requiring it,
> e.g. that students will learn something that will be of use to them in the
> course of their college education and thereafter. Then, given thatthe course
> is required of all students, I think they have a right to expect a reasonable
> degree of uniformity between one section and another. They are supposed to be
> taking "the same course."

I agree.

> In this context, each instructor doing his or her
> own thing is bad.

Again, I question your logic.  Uniformity of course
oblectives/competencies is one thing; however, the freedom to decide
how to achieve those ends is another.  One does not preclude the other.
Furthermore, "each instructor doing his or her own thing" is not
necessarily "bad."  (Whatever happened to the ideal of diversity that
drives our art?)

> How strict we want the limits to be on that "thing" may vary
> with the kinds of instructors we have. While some novices may be good writing
> teachers, most are not.

Again, your generalization disturbs me.  My sense is that those new to our
profession are drawn to the field by a number of factors: (A) they've had
good experiences with writing teachers (A. J. Alexander, where are you?) or
teachers who stress writing, (B) they enjoy and are successful at writing
and want to share their interest and knowledge, (C) they enjoy working with
college students, (D) they enjoy the company of other writing teachers.
There are more, I'm sure.  Thus, even before the first class, he/she
already has a pretty good idea of what the goals are and how to achieve
them.  After so many years of schooling, a new teacher is hardly unaware
of what good teaching is.  Furthermore, I don't see growth in teaching
ability as a linear process; that is, a person doesn't automatically
improve with every class taught.  Teaching is a messy business.  There are
so many variables: students, physical classroom, time of day, instructor's
attitude, current events, etc.  The fact that the elements all come
together to create a terrific teaching/learning experience is often
due to chance.  And we learn from these accidents.

> There are things to be known about making good
> assignments; one can learn how to develop engaging and useful classroom
> activities; it helps if instructors known something about rhetoric; one can
> learn ways to use computers in the writing classroom.

I agree.

> I think good teachers can be made; relatively few good teachers are born.

I don't want to get into the nature/nurture issue.  My sense is that
it's a combination of both.

> Yeah, I suppose a WPA in a
> program like ASU's has some sort of power (but laughably little in the great
> scheme of things), but in this case maybe knowledge is power.

This is not the message that came across in the post I responded to.

> I know quite a
> bit about teaching writing, and I am better qualified than most of our TAs to
> judge whether or not an assignment is trivial, undoable, easy, or difficult.

I make a distinction between "knowing about teaching writing" and "being
able to teach effectively."  Again, there are too many variables to even
begin to form an equation.  (Thus, teaching is still more an
artistic, creative performance than an exact, formulaic science.  And
I might add that that's why many of us are drawn to it and are able to
teach the same courses year after year.  No two classes are alike!)  What's
undoable for one may not be undoable for all.

> James, you seem to be proposing that knowledge counts for nothing in the
> teaching of writing and that I should not attempt to get what I know
> aboutteaching writing integrated into our writing program.

No.

> Sorry, but I do
> make a distinction between our TAs and myself: I know more than they do.

You and your TAs are individuals.  But knowledge is relative.  To teach, I
would think that one must first be a good learner.  Don't we learn from
our students?  I'm a part of the writer's audience; as such, I expect
essays that enlighten, enlarge, and entertain.  By sharing in the
student's efforts, by working with him, I learn how to inspire, encourage, and
help.  I grow from the interaction, and I hope that the student does, too.
 Students don't come to us half empty; TAs don't, too.

> I
> have devoted good portion of my life to gaining that knowledge. Should I just
> keep it to myself?

Sometimes, perhaps.   ;)

> The TAs and I are a "we" in that we are engaged in the
> common enterprise of trying to help students learn to write. In any case, many
> of our finest instructors are people who are knowledgeable about rhetoric and
> composition, who knowledgeable about teaching, and who have much experience in
> the classroom.

I agree.

> In what other field would we argue that the best practitioner
> is the one with the least knowledge and experience?

I don't believe a medical/technical model is appropriate for the art and
science of teaching composition.

> The subtext of a lot of
> discussion on various lists these days is that many people have lost so much
> confidence in their own knowledge that they are reluctant to presume to teach
> others.

Perhaps that confidence needs to be rattled now and then.  I'm inclined to
think that we have more questions than answers in our field.  Instead of
teaching others, maybe we ought to be learning from, collaborating with,
one another.


Jim Shimabukuro


P.S. Merry Christmas.  Mele Kalikimaka.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU