Or something.
Wading through this week’s highly theoretical reading, I found myself thinking: Are theories the reason we do things? This question was particularly bothering me when I read Bonnie Kyburz’s “Autobiography: The Rhetorical Efficacy of Self-Reflection/Articulation.” I was excited to read it, because I’d like to assign autobiographical writing, but upon reading Kyburz’s arguments, I became disenfranchised. For example, she makes the argument that autobiographical writing can contribute to “catalyzing Freirian processes of concientization” and help students realize “social constructionist rubric” despite “postmodern assaults on the notion of the subject and notions of individual agency” (138, 137).
Or something.
What I do know that none of the reasons I want to teach autobiographical writing were mentioned in her essay. I just though it would be cool because (1) it would be interesting for me and for the students (2) it requires creativity, which I’m good at (3) it would help me get to know my students (4) they wouldn’t have to do a lot of reading. I thought these were all good reasons, yet they don’t fit into a theoretical framework, so I feel like they are “wrong.”
So that’s the question I have for this week: What do we do with these theories? Are we supposed to learn from them? Argue with them? Use them to justify everything we do? Are theories the only way to justify doing anything? What happens if we do something that goes against a theory?
Do we start with a theory and build a lesson from there, or do we start with notions of what we want to teach and then look at the theories and modify? Or do we teach what we want to teach and then nod at that theories and say, "Yeah!"?
Or something.
What I do know that none of the reasons I want to teach autobiographical writing were mentioned in her essay. I just though it would be cool because (1) it would be interesting for me and for the students (2) it requires creativity, which I’m good at (3) it would help me get to know my students (4) they wouldn’t have to do a lot of reading. I thought these were all good reasons, yet they don’t fit into a theoretical framework, so I feel like they are “wrong.”
So that’s the question I have for this week: What do we do with these theories? Are we supposed to learn from them? Argue with them? Use them to justify everything we do? Are theories the only way to justify doing anything? What happens if we do something that goes against a theory?
Do we start with a theory and build a lesson from there, or do we start with notions of what we want to teach and then look at the theories and modify? Or do we teach what we want to teach and then nod at that theories and say, "Yeah!"?
posted by Faith | 3:48 PM
5 Comments:
Faith,
Just a quick comment - the language in the Kyburz article I found distracting (how many big words can I use in one sentence?), which is too bad because I like the ideas. My first response to your question is that we all have theories - we can't teach without them. We may not be aware of our theories, and that may be the benefit of reading what others do and why. Perhaps in reading the theories and practice of others, we can see what we do believe and why. You bring out good points--I think we should argue with theories, learn from them, use them to justify our decisions, adjust them daily, modify them based on what we see students need and what we know about learning, etc... Much to ponder.
I think Kyburz's article is provoking because she offers an approach to teaching composition that could be used as a means to encourage, rather than alienate first-year composition students. Kyburz argues for teaching first-year composition using autobiography, not as a genre, but as a rhetorical strategy. This is where it appears Faith and Kyburz part ways.
Faith, if I understand you correctly, it seems as if you would prefer to teach autobiography with a creative, expressivist frame that matches your interest in creative writing. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't think that is primarily what we're being called to do as first-year composition instructors.
The difference between what you're talking about and what Kybrutz argues for is significant for Kyburz because she sees autobiography as a strategy for teaching composition where teachers can introduce students to academic discourse "by encouraging critical engagement not only with the self but also with the complex ways in which the self is shaped by and responds to the world...[and in doing so she would have us (both teacher and student)] disavow the notion of autobiography as exclusively expressionistic" (140). That is, autobiography then becomes a rhetorical frame and the goal one of problematizing the self as an autonomous being in the world, rather than expressing one's self through description and narrative.
Your other question is just as provocative. In my opinion, theory should not only inform, but also be the foundation on which we build our pedagogy. I do agree with Kirstin when she says that we don't need a theoretical reason for our every decision, but I do believe we need to make many good decisions based on theory.
Afterall, if we were meant to teach composition from a purely practical point of view, then not only would this course have a different name, but in all likelihood, the university wouldn't even offer the course because they could hire any Tom, Dick, or Jane off the street with a good command of grammar, spelling, and punctuation and be just as well served. On the other hand, with both practical and theoretical knowledge we will know not only how to teach writing, but also be able to say why we teach it as we do and support our reasons with relevant research.
I think that I had my ideas and through my readings found the theory that backed those ideas up. You might think about theory differently when you begin teaching. Sometimes I might have a good idea and I read a theory and it helps me to flesh out the idea and translate it into the classroom. A Writing Project friend says that everything in the classroom needs to be grounded in theory. All of those reasons that you want to use autobiographical writing for can be grounded in theory. Thanks for your great questions.
Hi Keri, can you toss in some citations? This is a subject I'd like to know more about, but I'd like to be able to connect the dots more as it pertains to the uses and desired outcomes. Thanks.
it is likely that no one will read this, as i just stumbled upon this blog post and responses.
i am a little shocked to hear that *i* have been too theoretical (i'm often accused of being too loose w/ my work). but i'll take it. in fact, i could have written that piece a thousand different ways, but, as you may by now realize, personal writing in the academic, even in comp, is so often critiqued, attacked, vilified . . . that it seems necessary to defend it, and especially in a theoretically sophisticated (not saying i did that) and/or valid (hoping i did that) way.
Sherrie Gradin's book _Romancing Rhetorics_ and Bruce McComiskey's _Teaching Writing as a Social Process_ are KEY works in this project of rethinking expressivist practices (and WHY the personal essay needs to be so clearly placed there is really -- there, a simply "really" -- problematic). but then, so is/was the vilification of expressivism, as Gradin and Mc make clear.
Post a Comment
<< Home