Lindemann’s ideas were a bit hard to come to terms with at first. It seemed contrary to what we do in the high school to say that there is no place for literature in the composition classroom. I had to take a step back and try to understand where she was coming from when she made this statement. I was finally able to see that she was talking about a class that is strictly focused on composition. At the college level, this situation is the norm. For those of us in the high school level, we are not able to separate the two. We do not divide composition and literature, especially in the early years. We have to use literature alongside composition because we are expected to give them exposure to both of them. As I began to look at her statement in this light, it started to make more sense to me. I know that it is very true that the discussions that take place about the literature are usually centered on me asking questions and then hoping that someone will not only be able to answer, but also be lead to a comment of their own. It usually ends up with me doing a lot of talking and the students looking at me.
I was very interested in her thoughts on the combination of the product and process methods of writing. She has taken the benefits of each and focused on them, while avoiding many of the drawbacks. Her focus on the community and social aspects of writing is something that I think I need to focus on more with my students. They really don’t have a very clear concept of their role in any conversation outside of their immediate lives. They don’t see their work as having an impact on a larger scale. I need to work to show them that their words can impact their world in ways that they are unaware of.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nic, I think perhaps this argument strikes high school teachers as a direct criticism, but I don’t think Lindemann intends it as such. She argues that in composition classes centered on literature, the discussion tends to center on the story and the characters rather than on the writing techniques or rhetorical choices, so that the students get very little new information about honing their writing skills. Of course, the aims would be different when you are teaching a literature class.
ReplyDeleteLindemann says that she and Gary Tate instigated the debate to generate conversation about the purposes of teaching freshman composition. Too often, schools or teachers adopt a stale curriculum without questioning its usefulness or effectiveness in their classrooms. The idea isn’t to arrive at a consensus of right or wrong, but rather to question what we teach and why.
First of all, you and Rebecca have it right - Lindemann is addressing the teaching of a composition course. Entirely different from the structure provided for secondary instruction.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though I am a High School English teacher as well, I found exactly the opposite reaction from that you described. It was like a light bulb came on. Why don't we do this in high school? It makes so much sense! I don't think the teaching of literature is much affected by our throwing in writing and grammar, but in every class I ever took in high school, and in all the classes I've observed as an undergraduate and a teacher, writing took a back seat to literature and was hardly taught at all.
Not in the sense that we are learning about it here.
Every other level is organized with separate courses to separate reading and writing. I think High School needs to seriously consider moving to a similar model if we are to prove most effective at teaching all three of our assigned subjects.