What is a philosophy of composition or a philosophy of teaching? Are there different types of philosophies? What teaching and learning strategies do you think might go into your philosophy?
Philosophy--the rational investigation of the truths and principles of knowledge. Composition--the act of producing a literary work. Teaching--the act of imparting knowledge of or skill in. Perhaps the hardest area of education in which to have a philosophy is that of teaching. Even harder than that is to have a philosophy of composition. Everyone has his or her own ideas about what makes a literary work a success. The old trend in standardized testing in Texas was formulaic for the writing response. Follow the structure of: introduction, 3 body paragraphs, and a conclusion. It got even more structured when teachers taught the "code" of passing the TAAS writing prompt: in the body paragraphs, use an authority, an example, and a statistic to support your 3 points. In essence, follow the structure of presenting an idea and backing it up (with made up data), and that's what makes your essay successful. So, by the end of the TAAS test, everyone was churning out the same essays. The newer version of the standardized test in Texas (TAKS) is to test students on their ability to apply the education they're receiving in the classroom. So, in essence, the writing prompt was meant to test the student's ability to write a thoughtful essay in response to a question that was more personal and required an amount of truth as support. More importantly, teachers were told that graders were looking for voice and a certain level of "this essay rings true" through the style of the paper. Formulaic writing was discouraged, and stylistic responses were sought after. So, even in a whole system of education, it's hard to find that end-all and be-all of philosophies of composition.
I was never a good writer of the structured essays. I could never really formulate an argument and back it up with sources all in the formula of a thesis, commentary, textual support, and a decision. I got good grades in my classes, though, because the teacher was looking at the fact that I didn't make any spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or mechanical errors. In essence, I was a good writer because I was a good follower of rules. Even more than that, though, I had different ideas. I had a voice in my papers, a style that went against the formulaic norms of composition. I was always more of a creative writer than a structured writer. When I started teaching, though, my philosophy of teaching leaned more toward life lessons and "the bigger picture". I began to craft my students to become thinkers. And even though I'm all about following the rules, I would rather have them use my lessons to formulate educated opinions of "bigger picture" scenarios as opposed to spitting back at me a formulaic essay that was boring to read. So, my philosophy of composition became a product of my own experience and the environment I was teaching in.
Now, though, I think my philosophy of composition and teaching would involve both the educated thinking and the elements of good grammar. Because I taught students (seniors in high school) who had pretty much come up in an awful educational system, who still didn't understand the concept of verbs and nouns, I turned my teaching to understanding literature and using various types of historical and literary works to shape their own ideas about their own worlds. To be honest, the majority of them were not expected to go on to college, and most of them didn't want to pursue an education anyway. That was then, though. Now, these are college students. I'm hoping that there's a valid reason for them passing the entrance exams to even get into college in the first place. So, with that assumption about their level of education, I expect them to have some sort of educational background reflected in their essays. And the very fact that they've been admitted to college means, to me, that there's some sort of personal motivation on their part to learn. So, there's no excuse to not be able to learn the rules of grammar and voice equally and apply that to their compositions. My philosophy is that if you're going to seriously try to learn what makes a good paper a good paper, I'm going to help you learn all the concepts of composition, not just a few. I'll help you learn about voice, audience, good grammar, style, development, everything that's involved in writing. But, you're going to have to be motivated to learn, too. So, my philosophy of teaching stands on the assumption that you want to learn in the first place.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your points. A philosophy, ultimately, is a belief system about something. It's a way of looking at something, which might include the values, tendencies, primary focal points, etc.
ReplyDeleteExcellent definitions. You have a logical way of approaching the thinking that needs to be done in this course. Nice to see. Indeed, TAAS and "no child left behind" is an example of way too much top down. Instead, looking at what each individual student needs to know, and wants to learn, should be instilled or embedded in one's teaching. Perhaps there's a way to have both assessment and voice; however, one much work at it carefully as a teacher.
You have an excellent start here. Indeed, knowledge is meaningless unless personally applied.
I agree with your points. A philosophy, ultimately, is a belief system about something. It's a way of looking at something, which might include the values, tendencies, primary focal points, etc.
ReplyDeleteI really like your points about voice in particular. Voice is so difficult to define, let alone tease out of your students. And, as you say, there are multiple components in the process of writing that leads to products that are important to know and master. Really looking forward to reading your final essay.