Are we truly student-centered?

I appreciate that other people are actually thinking about my query last week. Kudos to Garth for extending the conversation. It's been vexing me for quite some time. I grappled briefly with this question for a few pages in the conclusion of my Masters thesis, but I can't say I've reached anything close to a definitive answer.

For starters, I agree that we shouldn't kowtow to the lazy and unmotivated, but, as Garth points out, this problem is bigger than that. The poetry example is apt. We may have to qualify our student-centeredness in such cases, because while our intention may be to empower the student, we aren't always doing what the writer actually wants.

I more or less embrace the holistic, contextual view of writing pedagogy we've been discussing in class, but student expectations are unlikely to reflect the same epistemelogical bases. Sometimes, student expectations may be at odds with our most fundamental pedadogical ideals. What if a student's primary concern is to improve his/her grammar or mechanics? When we (writing teachers) begin our exploration of writing at the macro-level, we are inevitably going against the desires of the student, who, ironically, is supposed to be at the very center of our practice.

There is a difference here - between what a student wants and what a student needs. We cater to the latter, as we probably should. It bears mentioning, though, that we are informed primarily by our conception of what that student needs. It's almost parental, a sort of "we know know what's best for you" mentality. And while I don't see our relationship with students as hegemonic, it's not unthinkable that our student-centered pedagogy could be interpreted as self-centered ideology. As Matt F astutely pointed out, (though I believe it was in the intro class): "Do we want our students to learn how to think, or do we want them to learn to think like us?"

For what it's worth, we probably do know what's best for our students. I'm not saying ours is a bad approach - but we should call it what it is.

Granted, some students don't know what they want. For many, grammar is all they know; not all students even have the vocabulary to explicate what they want out of a writing class. They just say "I need grammar help" because they don't know how else to characterize their writing problems. Still (and I refer directly to Garth's question):"is it in the students' best interest to teach them one vocally desired skill at the expense of another, though possibly unconsidered by them?"

I'm still not sure.

It's important for teachers of comp to acknowledge that a class grounded in sociocultural theory creates a fairly unique learning environment, essential and meaningful to us, but thoroughly baffling to those unfamiliar with it. Students are newcomers to this world, where we have determined the parameters, goals, and educational philosophy. Priorities they hold dear (external text characteristics, grades) cease to be the focal point of their learning. Throughout all this, we, the teachers, purport to be student-centered. Is it any wonder that students get confused?

To mitigate the inevitable confusion and help students become comfortable with this, I think it's our job to explain ourselves and goals/objectives, to sort of sell the very idea of what we're doing. The conception of us, at least outside the field of Writing Studies, is not always accurate. Despite our ongoing attempts to define ourselves and what we do, many still see us as form-focused grammarians. As such, we need to keep our means and ends in sight at all times...what do we really intend to do? Why is the path we've chosen the best one? What does it really mean to teach writing?

Geez...questions have only begat more questions here. But the sort of reflective knowledge gained in this class will serve us well. If we are ever to work through these differing expectations, we need to be clear with students about what to expect from us as teachers.