Theories in Pedagogy

“The test of one’s competence as a composition instructor, it seems to me, resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student. “ (Berlin 777)

This week’s readings focus on theories of pedagogy. All of the articles address ways in which we approach or teach composition. I will start with Hillock’s meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies in composition classrooms. Essentially, the meta-analysis aimed to provide an explanation of the variability among the treatments in comparison to that of their effect size. Hillock’s organized the research based on categorizing the treatments. Hillock’s organizes the literature under the categories of mode of instruction, natural process mode, environmental mode, individualized mode, and then the results for these treatments. Additionally, Hillock’s establishes subcategories for the focus of instruction which include grammar and mechanics (naturally), sentence combining, inquiry, and free writing. Hillock’s was able to determine what seems to be quite obvious and a lot of what we have been discussing in class that the dimensions involved in effective instruction are different from what is actually used as practice in the classroom. I would ask why that is, but I think I already know the answer. The findings of the meta-analysis indicate that the most effective mode of instruction is the “environmental” kind. Essentially, this form of instruction joins together the teacher, student and content more closely and thus utilizing all of the resources available in the classroom context. There is a brief discussion about grammar and the overall ineffectiveness of its instruction. I particularly point this out because I have been assigned the daunting task of teaching principles of grammar. While I read the findings presented in this study, and many others I have come across like it, I wonder exactly what the heck is the purpose. My rationale is that it is more of the “scientific” aspect of grammar rather than drilling it in order for my students to become better writers, that isn’t my purpose. I don’t know if I am correct in that manner; nevertheless, I am stuck with the job. We are again reminded that despite the findings of the effectiveness of the different dimensions, there isn’t one sole way of writing instruction. Ideally, there needs to be a combination and balance of the different modes.

Berlin’s article was one that I rather enjoyed reading. The article allows revisiting of the different types of pedagogical theories during the time in which he is writing: Neo-Aristotelians/Classicists, Positivists/Current –Traditionalists, Neo-Platonists /Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians. Berlin describes the directives of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. However, his main emphasis is that of what he believes to be the most effective approach in pedagogy, the camp of New Rhetoricians. Berlin emphasizes the New Rhetoricians as epistemic in that “knowledge is not simply a static entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements.” (Berlin 774) Essentially, what is true for one person may not be true for another…essentially epistemology at its finest. One of the points Berlin strongly argues is the notion that composition instructors shouldn’t be solely focusing on instructing students for the composition classroom, but instructing on a way that students “will experience the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it all.” (Berlin 776) As we think about truth and the way we instruct students, we need to think about how we should explore multiple truths….multiple realities.

Breuch article addresses the holes in perspective of that of the post-process approach. Breuch argues that the only reason for post-process theorists to critique process is for the simple agenda of using process as a means to move forward with the argument of postmodern perspectives that are essential for post-process theory. Breuch argues that post-process theory focuses on redefining writing. Essentially, Breuch argues that post-process theory is in fact not pedagogical at all. The implications from her work remind teachers that there needs to be a heightened awareness in our pedagogical practices that in fact meet the needs of the students.

Fulkersons article addresses the issue of composition studies diverging within the last decade. He provides description of the now emphasis on multicultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric. He asserts that there is less of a consensus regarding what should be taught in the composition classrooms as well as what is supposed to be achieved within these courses. More importantly, what is considered to be “effective” instruction. As I read through this article I couldn’t help but think about the field of education and the divergence that exists within the different fields of education. It seems, as Fulkerson puts it, there is a sort of war that takes place as to what is the “right” and “wrong” way of doing things. He says the same about pedagogical theories in composition.

The Down’s article addresses a proposed course for first-year composition students as a writing studies course. The framework of this course revolves around the notion that there is an understanding that there is no universal way of teaching for academic discourse. Ideally, the goal of the course is to essentially become more of a literacy course than writing course. Thus, students will have more of a realistic understanding of the nature of writing. I believe this is the sort of course that could possibly be more effective for students than the traditional English 101 course. Now, I am not saying this type of course should supplant the Eng 101 course, but be an addition to requirements. It is of importance for students to understand writing beyond academic discourse and the modes. Perhaps there will be drastic improvements to the way students not only produce writing, but approach it. Generally, students’ dispositions would change if they were more informed. Of course, the natural problem would exist in that we are faced with the same issues regarding pedagogical theories. What would be the best way to teach this. What exactly would it involve? Would this create more of a divergence in pedagogical studies than already exists? Perhaps…but is it worth it?