For my analysis paper, I have chosen to focus on the parallels and common ideas presented in the articles by Gere and Bartholomae. I am using this blog setting as a sort of thought map, so this is not so much a draft of my draft as it is a generalized pool of my ideas which I will use to help me write a cohesive paper. I tend to ramble on, and become very tangential, so please bear with me.
Although Bartholomae is a bit ambiguous in his argument, I have come to the conclusion that he is not altogether happy with the status quo of academic literacy, or perhaps academic language altogether. This is obviously paralleled in Gere's article, as she argues for the integration of more forward-thinking methods of learning into the classroom. They seem, however, to be addressing different audiences, which is what intrigues me most about linking the two articles together. Gere is addressing mainly the high school (and perhaps lower) level educators, the people who are actually initiating students into the composition mini-sphere, whereas Bartholomae is addresses university-level educators.
The difference between these two levels of education is the existence of options. Students are required, at lower age levels, to take English classes. Some high schools may offer a limited variety of options in regard to subject matter, but nobody really has the option of not taking English classes. At the university level, however, only a basic level English class is actually required - and some students may test out of that requirement, bypassing further English instruction altogether.
The issue at hand, according to Bartholomae, is that academic composition is required in areas outside of English instruction. This is where students can run into trouble. They may be competent enough to test out of English 101, but perhaps still lack a thorough understanding of the discourse they are required to use for writing in other classes. However, many students will likely opt not to take an extra course on academic writing if it is not required, for a number of reasons: it would add unnecessary credits, unnecessary work load, and an unnecessary extra class in a window that could possibly fit a different class which fulfills major requirements.
It is the fact, though, that students would view it as unnecessary at all that is the real problem. Deeming a class unnecessary, and therefore not valuable, communicates some sort of disdain for the subject which stems from unsuccessful education methods originating at the lower levels. This is where Gere's argument begins to apply. Current methodology in English education has the unfortunate effect of neglecting or excluding certain students based on academic skill level. Students who feel alienated by the subject matter are less likely to maintain an active interest in the subject itself, and will be less likely to seek out further instruction when they may actually need it.
Because these students become outcasts of academia early in their academic career, they are then less likely to succeed if they opt to continue in education, or may not even have the option of continuing education due to their perceived 'failure'. The perception of failure in a given subject can have a widespread effect on all classes, as I experienced a few semesters ago in my final attempts at finishing my degree in music. I had such a negative perception of my abilities in music that I no longer wanted to try, and started to feel very depressed which affected my other classes as well as my social life and health.
Another way in which the two articles are indirectly related is in Gere's advocation for integration of extracurriculum with the current curriculum. Because she is addressing a primarily lower age level, her argument is still valid; however, extracurriculum is much more widely accepted as legitimate at the college setting (mostly in terms of creative writing, rather than academic composition). The university has many opportunities for students to share extracurricular writing, both in and outside of the classroom, which helps to foster a more positive writing environment for those who are pursuing that path of study.
The fact that many Topic classes are available to students in a plethora of different subjects immediately makes the study of English more enjoyable and more accessible to those who may not have been interested in straight-up composition or literature courses. If this could be made more widely available to student populations, perhaps it would foster more of a general public interest in the subject as a whole. This is a possible alternative to Bartholomae's proposal that students be obligatorily taught to write in academic discourse: perhaps initiating students into the extracurricular aspects of composition will lead to a sort of willing literacy of that special sort of discourse, if it is slowly disbursed among other, more "fun" and interesting pieces of literature or assignments.
No comments:
Post a Comment