English 1000 in context (post for 2-2)
Obviously, we have been talking about the larger context in which English 1000 is placed, and how the context of the department, university, and world in general should influence the goals and methods in a first-year composition course. I agree with the authors about the importance of taking a wide-angle shot in order to recognize the broader goals of education. Education is not the result of one class, and teachers certainly want to prepare their students for what lies ahead.
That said, however, I feel that a consistent fault in talking about courses such as English 1000 is a failure to recognize the education that has already taken place. Even the phrase “first-year composition” sends the message that all learning about how to write begins here. It does not recognize that teachers are providing writing instruction almost from the moment students learn how to grasp a pencil, if not before. More specifically, discussions of college composition often send an implicit message that students need to “unlearn” whatever ideas of writing they learned in high school. Both Gilles and Hesse mention the “five-paragraph theme” in ways that make it sound like an antiquated formula that is good enough for thoughtless high school writing but completely unsuited for the critical thinking demanded in college level courses (see Gilles 3 and Hesse 42). But after Hesse criticizes this form of writing, on the very next page he states, “A good deal of writing takes the form of generalization and support” (43). Disregarding the exact number of paragraphs, which Hesse himself acknowledges can vary, I have a difficult time seeing the difference between the “five-paragraph theme” and “generalization and support.” To me, both terms are just different ways of describing common academic writing. I feel that, in placing English 1000 in its larger context, part of that context should also include recognizing, appreciating, and building upon the learning that has already taken place. (I realize that my response is directly influence by my desire to teach high school English after completing my degree, but I feel this is a relevant issue for all to discuss.)
~Jennifer Hertlein
That said, however, I feel that a consistent fault in talking about courses such as English 1000 is a failure to recognize the education that has already taken place. Even the phrase “first-year composition” sends the message that all learning about how to write begins here. It does not recognize that teachers are providing writing instruction almost from the moment students learn how to grasp a pencil, if not before. More specifically, discussions of college composition often send an implicit message that students need to “unlearn” whatever ideas of writing they learned in high school. Both Gilles and Hesse mention the “five-paragraph theme” in ways that make it sound like an antiquated formula that is good enough for thoughtless high school writing but completely unsuited for the critical thinking demanded in college level courses (see Gilles 3 and Hesse 42). But after Hesse criticizes this form of writing, on the very next page he states, “A good deal of writing takes the form of generalization and support” (43). Disregarding the exact number of paragraphs, which Hesse himself acknowledges can vary, I have a difficult time seeing the difference between the “five-paragraph theme” and “generalization and support.” To me, both terms are just different ways of describing common academic writing. I feel that, in placing English 1000 in its larger context, part of that context should also include recognizing, appreciating, and building upon the learning that has already taken place. (I realize that my response is directly influence by my desire to teach high school English after completing my degree, but I feel this is a relevant issue for all to discuss.)
~Jennifer Hertlein
posted by jhertlein | 5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home