As opened our reading for this week, I was quite surprised to see the content of Chapters 1 and 9, as the advice (for waiting) seemed, to me, largely at odds with much of our past readings, conversations and videos. In the first paper the starter syllabus, we are asking our students to explore how their process of writing functions. This pursuit includes the consideration of both inspires and impedes the writing process. By taking this approach, we simultaneously aim to achieve several different things: 1.) to help students to better understand their relationship to writing so that they may improve their writing, and 2.) to dispel the myth of a precise, or right, way to writing, and 3.) to express our willingness to embrace different modes of thought and expression.
And, yet, as I read through these chapters, I do not see the same openness being advocated (which is partially because this book is—as the title denotes—an advice manual). To be more specific, these chapters seem to establish a clear divide between what is a good and bad form of writing and/or teaching. I think part of my reaction is due to the fact that I find myself identifying with (or, to be precise, the book has identified my writing and/or teaching style to be connected to) both methods of passivity and activity. While I may schedule “ideal” blocks of time to complete lesson planning or writing, I also engage in the playful scribbles as they and when they come to present themselves.
Part of the issue, to me, seems to be this use of the term passivity, which seems to denote a lack of control or inefficiency. Under this premise, we allow the constructs of the situation to dictate where, when and how we write or teach (at least, the planning portion). In actuality, these two processes seem to go hand-in-hand, aside from the negative connotation the book places on passive waiting. Or, perhaps a better way of saying it, it just that writing and teaching are much messier than what is presented here.
No comments:
Post a Comment