In Brereton's article, I was most intrigued by the section on Fred Newton Scott. I do not comprehend how four professors could teach English to 1,200 students! Scott's tone of frustration is very understandable. I liked his idea of the English classroom being like a lab. English is more complex than other subject areas, for example, history. It is far more than pure memorization of dates or formulas; therefore, it makes perfect sense that students need individual attention like the kind they receive in a chemistry lab. In addition, Scott is convincing when he argues that he does not expect literature or beautiful style from his students, but instead simply that they "think straight-forwardly" and "express themselves clearly and connectedly" (105-6).
The main idea from Kitzhaber's article that resonated with me was the question, "who's to blame?" Although he does not really follow through with the thought later in his article, he raises a good point when he states that college English professors always blame high school teachers for not preparing the students adequately for college English courses. However, after reading the article and seeing the vast differences in college syllabi, it is not surprising that high school teachers are receiving a mixed message on what they should be teaching. I am personally interested in this topic because after earning my M.A. I want to teach high school English. Based on these syllabi, it is unclear if I should focus on grammar, literature, rhetoric, linguistics, logic, semantics, public speaking or try to teach a little bit of everything. It seems freshman composition courses across the nation should either come to an agreement on what is the most important skill for students to come to college with, or if they cannot agree, at minimum they should stop putting all the blame on the high school teachers.
Enjoyed seeing some of the connections you've made here, Hannah. I like the notion that it's a lab--a place for testing out words in different solutions and combinations and connections. How do we set up labs, though, that are designed well to maximize everyone's learning in a valid and reliable way? There's the rub. Good question about how to angle your experiences in order to best teach high school. Might look up books that talk about high school AND college composition. See this one, for example: http://www.compositionstudies.tcu.edu/bookreviews/online/32-2/rice.html
ReplyDeleteI like your identification of the layers of choices composition teachers have in terms of historical trends in the field. To produce overarching standards among cirriculums would help more clearly define the roles of composition teachers at all levels. However, the shifting landscape of values regarding composition and changes in technology that affect the arenas of composition make the idea of standardization a problematic one. Even if in a miraculous compromise, a standard could be set, how long would it last before becoming outdated in some aspects? Are there parts of composition that will always be important across time? Could these represent core competencies that will be remain central across future shifts?
ReplyDeleteI, too, wish for a standardized expectation for composition. It only seems fair to everyone involved. It's so unfortunate, though, that every change that desperately needs to be made requires a complete overhaul of a system that is quite resistant to change. If only the ideal could be the real. :)
ReplyDelete