As I read theory - of any kind - I am constantly surprised by the number of theorists who seem surprised to find themselves dealing with the same arguments over and over again.
Matsuda is quite concerned about the consequences of "the use of concepts developed in another site of intellectual practices" (66) on L2 theory; we need only look at our other readings for this week, however, to see that dealing with this issue is inescapable. How "serious" are the consequences?
Well, that depends on how gullible we choose to be when we read theory. Because knowledge itself is "discursive construction" (66), we need to constantly read "with a grain of salt," and a little common sense. More than this, we need to be aware that it is our "shared axiology" (68) (like gold in Ft. Knox) that allows us to buy into "the rhetorical nature of writing" (68) in the first place.
All of which still only begs the deeper question: "What is the best way to teach composition?"
It is the underlying question on everyone's mind - and arguments surrounding what we may or may not call our exploration of ideas ("Current-Traditional, "Process," "Post-Procss," "Bob") don't get us any closer to answering it.
Obviously, I haven't been in this field for long so have very little in the way of ethos on which to base my feelings, but I can't deny that it sounds as though much of the debate on theory simply surrounds the debate on theory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All I have to say to: "We need to constantly read "with a grain of salt," and a little common sense," is "YES!" and "ABSOLUTELY!" I feel that this is what we should be teaching our students, if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure, however, that there will ever be a "best way to teach composition." I think that we can learn from what we see in compositional theory/studies and take what our own personal ideologies allow us to teach, according to our own sense of ethics, and we cannot do any better.
You are correct, however, about the readings for comp theory, they are very similar, and I am starting to really get the sense, according to my own personal way of viewing the world, that these people are only about half correct in everything that they assert.
I agree with both of you, I too am just getting my feet wet in all of this, But I am a teacher and I heard once that made sense to me. Every teacher has a style. Just as we must find our voice, as teachers of compostion we have to find our style , our strength and use it to our advantage. For example, one teacher may be very organized and sequential and structured, Students do need some structure. I believe I am relational. This is not the answer to everything but I feel when a student has trust in a teacher, he can learn and be guided academically more easily. Perhaps after we study the theories, we do have to draft our own pedagogy and I believe that we will take what matches our style as a teacher.
ReplyDelete