Reading Respose

Composing Theory: How Theory Can (and Can't) Help the Writing Teacher

It was very refreshing to read an essay that was brave enough to tackle both theory and practice and the relationship between them. It seems that many writings that I have been exposed to take very solid stances. The very title of this essay leaves room for some ambiguity which I think is necessary in an environment as fluid and changing as the college classroom.

The first part of this essay that I found both helpful and applicable to my future classroom experiences was his explanation of the very political nature of linguistics. I have definitely been in classrooms where “error policing” took center stage and was usually miserable in such classes. I like how he explains the ways that teachers fall into such habits because of a lack of time, as well as the very political backlash in many institutions against theory. For reasons of pragmatism, I can understand why chaotic theories such as Vygotsky's could cause some ripples, however I like his idea of generating response as opposed to strict lecutre and error correction.

I had some difficulty grasping the notion of intersectionality, mainly because I am unclear exactly what environment these “rhetorical universes intersect.” I'm assuming that this is a general statement that includes human speech, writing, blogging and any other form of communication that can be measured to a certain extent. I definitely agree with him that, because in reality writing and thought are not 'linear', we shouldn't try to follow them as if they were. As I mentioned before this does pose some potential pitfalls when it comes to assessment or, depending on the classroom (specifically his mention of ethnographic writing), the issue of fairness. However, the way he compartmentalizes the different intersections of composing makes things a little more manageable.

Creating the Introductory College Composition Course

I agree with Zebroski's ambiguous take on theory. Far too often I think some theorists ignore practice either because practice proves the theory wrong, or the likelier case, the practice doesn't always return consistent results. I am glad that Zebroski does not seem to fear this and even goes as far as to say that “theory is practice.” Out of all the useful points he mentions about theory, I think the most helpful is the relinquishment of control that he mentions. If I am understanding him correctly, he is referring to a classroom environment where answers and understanding are elicited from the students rather than imparted to them from the teacher.

When Zebroski discusses “Assumptions,” I have a difficult time wrapping my head around what exactly he means by 'theory.' What I take from this section is that these Vygotskian assumptions are rooted in the experiential process of learning writing. In other words, an instructor should have a subtle theme that can help elicit response from the students without directing them or limiting them.

I like the idea of introducing a theme into the class. While some might say that this is limiting, I think that (when not used in the extreme as Zebroski mentions) a theme can actually elicit much deeper and well thought out responses than a class that lacks a structure entirely. By giving the class a structure an instructor challenges the students to explore a somewhat limited area as in depth as possible. I think that this is a much better method than having an open ended class where you hardly scratch the surface on most of the issues the class is writing about.

I think Zebroski's notion of metawriting is an interesting one. In my years in school I think I was only ever asked to do this once. It was during finals week and at that point I didn't feel that it was very helpful. I think Zebroski's method of having them reflect in the beginning would be much more helpful. Another one of his methods that I find very, very appealing is establishing a dialogue on student papers. I know that very often students do not read the comments and seldom respond to them unless it is over a grade dispute. By having them respond to correction or comments, I would hope to give them a more critical eye for their own work by actually having them think about the comments that have been made.

The only point that Zebroski makes that I don't fully agree with is his use of ethnographic writing. I like the idea of exposing students to an unfamiliar culture or people, but I think that this also can lead to the students 'othering' another culture. I think this all depends on the way the instructor handles the methodology for this excersize. Depending on the age of the students, doing research and reporting about a different class level might be a baby step towards an ethnography. This way they would learn the nuances that make up a 'group' of people by understanding class within their own culture first.

I like how Zebroski links group work back to American culture. He says that our “competitive culture militates against this kind of sharing.” In some cases, I think that group work flares up individualism, especially where a grade is involved. I would have liked him to more clearly state what he means by group work. I think that the size of the group determines a lot, as does the method of assessment. I believe that he is correct in his observation that students seem invigorated and respond better, but I would like him to be more critical of the reasons for this. Perhaps writing appears better after group work because a pecking order of talent has been established within the group and the results are the work of just one or two people. Another probable reason for the positive responses could be because the students have finally had a chance to relax and talk to each other.

In all I agree with most of Zebroski's arguments and suggestions, but I do think that he needs to give more specific examples in some cases.

Common Sense Meets Research: The Debate Over Grammar Instruction in Composition Instruction

This discussion of grammar correction is one that I am familiar with from my ESL classes. I fully agree with Williamson's findings about the distraction and anxiety that strict grammatical correction causes. In the ESL classroom, the generation of speech or writing is far more important than having perfect grammar. I found that many students were ashamed of their poor grammar and this, not a lack of vocabulary or ability, is what prevented them from actively engaging in class discussion or even friendly talk outside of class.

The anecdote that Williamson gives at the beginning of this essay is a very appropriate one. When he goes on to wonder about why this very flawed method of grammar instruction is still in use, I think that the teacher's answer is the most fitting one: previous generations of instructors feel that it is a huge deviation to not teach grammar because that is how they learned. I was taught Chomsky's generative grammar model and found it to be very interesting, but I could not apply it in any of my ESL classes because these students had already been exposed to other methods.

I find Williamson's argument that when we are corrected, we only correct ourselves in certain contexts, to be very interesting and important. This is something that I never thought of before, but it makes complete sense.

As Williamson mentions, a shift in teaching methodology away from grammar correction is sure to be slow in coming. I think this is one of the more difficult issues a teacher will face if he or she wants to move away from traditional models in his or her classroom. Even if an individual instructor is very learned in these theories and has a very good method worked out, he or she still has to contend with tradition and even student confusion. A student might feel comfortable receiving error correction and might even come to rely on it. Although a switch to a more theoretical and more helpful model of instruction could be beneficial in the long run, a student might feel anxious over such a switch. This is the one point that Williamson doesn't really seem to account for. I think that the best way to handle this is to explain to a certain extent, your teaching methodology to the students. I have been in classrooms where teachers have strayed from tradition and I can clearly remember many students getting angry and anxious over it. However, when a teacher explains why he or she is teaching differently than other instructors it not only shows the students that you think they are intelligent enough to grasp your methodology, but that you have given real thought and care to how much they actually learn.

--Liz