Introduction to my inquiry question:
|
Mr. Ford's analysis paragraph template
|
I was initially shocked and dismayed upon introduction to the template, having never seen such a formulaic method of instruction. I found it hard to reconcile this method of teaching with the way I taught writing to undergraduates, a pedagogical approach that grew from a combination of research, collaboration with colleagues, and practical experience in the classroom. My primary concern in teaching college level writing to art students was to find authentic and practical modes of writing as well as reciprocity between my students’ work as artists and writers. ‘Building’ a composition with prefab materials struck me as fundamentally inauthentic by comparison, divorcing students from purpose, audience, and inspiration.
The approach to writing that I encountered at my placement school also butted up against the student-centered teachings of critical pedagogy I was being exposed to and inspired by in my graduate work, a theoretical approach that locates the teacher’s proper place in the classroom alongside the student. The writings of theorists such as Freire position the teacher as a student of their students rather than a master decreeing right and wrong, as this template seemed to elevate the teacher to do. However, I have made an uneasy peace with it over time as I’ve attempted to keep some critical distance in order to allow my students to reveal the potential value of this approach to writing. Over the year, I’ve had difficulty determining which approach to teaching writing, structured or open ended, is more respectful of my students, and this project has in many ways inspired more questions than answers for me.
As an English teacher, I am interested in helping my students find new and more effective means of communication, yet this approach seemed designed to stifle the student’s unique voice and eradicate any joy to be had in writing. Furthermore, such thorough scaffolding has potential to create dependence rather than confidence in students developing their own writing behaviors and acting on instinct and inspiration. Though my initial reaction to the template was negative, I realized that I was basing this response on my own educational history and could not presume to know what my students needed (or wanted—see Artifact #8 for many student testimonials in support of the template) before getting to know them and their writing. Imagining myself in my students’ position, I would have balked at the directive to write using this template, and I think it is important for me to consider my own journey in making decisions about how to help my students develop as passionate readers and writers. Yet I’ve discovered that it would be both arrogant to ignore my personal attitude on the subject and to project it onto my students. This led me to question whether writing with a template always produces ‘bad’ writing or if the issue lies in the way the template is taught and used.
The approach to writing that I encountered at my placement school also butted up against the student-centered teachings of critical pedagogy I was being exposed to and inspired by in my graduate work, a theoretical approach that locates the teacher’s proper place in the classroom alongside the student. The writings of theorists such as Freire position the teacher as a student of their students rather than a master decreeing right and wrong, as this template seemed to elevate the teacher to do. However, I have made an uneasy peace with it over time as I’ve attempted to keep some critical distance in order to allow my students to reveal the potential value of this approach to writing. Over the year, I’ve had difficulty determining which approach to teaching writing, structured or open ended, is more respectful of my students, and this project has in many ways inspired more questions than answers for me.
As an English teacher, I am interested in helping my students find new and more effective means of communication, yet this approach seemed designed to stifle the student’s unique voice and eradicate any joy to be had in writing. Furthermore, such thorough scaffolding has potential to create dependence rather than confidence in students developing their own writing behaviors and acting on instinct and inspiration. Though my initial reaction to the template was negative, I realized that I was basing this response on my own educational history and could not presume to know what my students needed (or wanted—see Artifact #8 for many student testimonials in support of the template) before getting to know them and their writing. Imagining myself in my students’ position, I would have balked at the directive to write using this template, and I think it is important for me to consider my own journey in making decisions about how to help my students develop as passionate readers and writers. Yet I’ve discovered that it would be both arrogant to ignore my personal attitude on the subject and to project it onto my students. This led me to question whether writing with a template always produces ‘bad’ writing or if the issue lies in the way the template is taught and used.