Bizzells's Holistic Bridge Between Bartholomae and Elbow

When thinking about the argument between Peter Elbow and David Bartholomae, I’m pretty sure I fall on the side of Patricia Bizzell.


Bizzell’s pedagogy of Additive and Holistic Teaching creates a bridge between Bartholomae’s need for formal teaching and Elbow’s belief in the student-directed writing experience. Bizzell seems to understand the assertion that “humans are socially constructed” (Badovinac), that it is important for students to explore their culture – while her epistemology also includes the consideration so necessary in today’s diverse learning community – not all cultures are the same, and the context for most students when they enter the classroom includes “various discourse communities.”


A nod to Bartholomae and the importance of academic writing, with which I whole-heartedly agree, Bizzell exhorts student exposure to “good writing,” according presenter Shaynee Jesik, as a way assisting student growth into “sophisticated writers and thinkers.” Where Bartholomae’s (and Elbow’s) pedagogical thinking seems to end at the door of the writing classroom, Bizzell, like Kathleen Blake Yancey, sees her role as teacher in a much broader perspective.


Yancey sees her teaching experience (especially in relation to technology) as a means of “[fostering] the development of citizens who vote, of citizens whose civic literacy is global in sensibility” (Yancey, “Made Not Only in Words,” 321). Where Yancey’s pedagogy embraces civic responsibility; however, Bizzell takes steps a little further – into territory where Bizzell and I must part ways.


At the university level – especially in a graduate situation – a teacher sharing personal political leanings is almost to be expected. But, in a pre-university setting – and perhaps even an undergraduate situation – a teacher needs to be careful exactly what it is they are trying to “model” for their students.


According to Jesik, Bizzell believes that “the teacher’s role is to get political,” but how political is political? And, where should a teacher (especially in a pre-university setting) draw a line determining how much personal input they add to the curriculum? While I believe a teacher can, and should, introduce current events and philosophies of civic responsibility in a balanced way, I cannot agree that a classroom ought to become the personal forum for an educator’s personal political agenda anymore than the teacher’s desk ought to become a pulpit from which to espouse their religious beliefs, but should, as Gerald Graff rather “[seek] to involve the student in a discussion of the issues through writing and literature without pre-determining a desired outcome for ways of thinking at the end of the course” (from Scott Lee’s presentation).