Writing Inquiry
A general reflection on the meaning of writing is always somewhat of a double-edged sword. As a student heavily invested in the meanings, purposes, history, and future of “writing,” my first instinct is to be forcefully idealistic – espousing the importance of the written word, describing its role in advancing human civilization. However, the other side of this coin reflects the divisiveness of literacy, miscommunication, and the smug certainty of truth we often attribute to the words we bandy about.
Speaking of coin, Nietzsche employs an incisive coin metaphor in an essay about the slippery subjectivity of “truth” and the inability of language to capture it: “[T]ruths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins” (On Truth and Lie…). On that note, I will begin my statement of beliefs regarding the current purposes and definitions of writing
by simply saying this: the tail is wagging the dog…our technologies are advancing faster than our ability to define ways to use them, and in regards to writing – everything is uncharted territory.
As for “theory” versus “practice” in the teaching of writing, I see theory as the methods, concepts, and strategies that have been conceptualized as scholarship for the purpose of building curriculum that teachers can study. Theory can include various ideologies about the way students learn to write, along with the research projects conducted to support various claims. Some theory can be very helpful in providing suggestions and roadmaps from which to construct one’s own pedagogy, but it also can seem dense and disconnected from the actual reality of the writing classroom.
“Practice” includes the actual, real world, day-to-day methods we use in our writing classrooms. The main difference is the leap of faith we make by exposing our students
to these methods and strategies that, for the most part, were theories, gleaned from scholarship, that appealed to our sensibilities about teaching. Over time, we develop and solidify our ideologies as writing teachers from a combination of simpatico theory and time-tested, successful in-class practices and assignments.
Although what writing actually is evolves constantly, I would have to say that it’s defined as marks, symbols, images, or any visual representation of thought, message, or idea, rendered on a medium, whether digital or analog, to communicate a concept.
In regards to the kinds of things having to do with computers writing teachers should convey to their students, we need to be careful. Often, the student will be much more technologically savvy than the teacher, so the main focus should remain on the content, or, the types and validity of information students are getting from the Internet. Holding students responsible for correctly citing their research is also important in this age of “cut and paste.”
Technology and writing are always intertwined. The most important characteristic, I feel, is the ability of technology, whether printing press or computer, to change writing, and reading, in unexpected ways.
Speaking of coin, Nietzsche employs an incisive coin metaphor in an essay about the slippery subjectivity of “truth” and the inability of language to capture it: “[T]ruths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins” (On Truth and Lie…). On that note, I will begin my statement of beliefs regarding the current purposes and definitions of writing
by simply saying this: the tail is wagging the dog…our technologies are advancing faster than our ability to define ways to use them, and in regards to writing – everything is uncharted territory.
As for “theory” versus “practice” in the teaching of writing, I see theory as the methods, concepts, and strategies that have been conceptualized as scholarship for the purpose of building curriculum that teachers can study. Theory can include various ideologies about the way students learn to write, along with the research projects conducted to support various claims. Some theory can be very helpful in providing suggestions and roadmaps from which to construct one’s own pedagogy, but it also can seem dense and disconnected from the actual reality of the writing classroom.
“Practice” includes the actual, real world, day-to-day methods we use in our writing classrooms. The main difference is the leap of faith we make by exposing our students
to these methods and strategies that, for the most part, were theories, gleaned from scholarship, that appealed to our sensibilities about teaching. Over time, we develop and solidify our ideologies as writing teachers from a combination of simpatico theory and time-tested, successful in-class practices and assignments.
Although what writing actually is evolves constantly, I would have to say that it’s defined as marks, symbols, images, or any visual representation of thought, message, or idea, rendered on a medium, whether digital or analog, to communicate a concept.
In regards to the kinds of things having to do with computers writing teachers should convey to their students, we need to be careful. Often, the student will be much more technologically savvy than the teacher, so the main focus should remain on the content, or, the types and validity of information students are getting from the Internet. Holding students responsible for correctly citing their research is also important in this age of “cut and paste.”
Technology and writing are always intertwined. The most important characteristic, I feel, is the ability of technology, whether printing press or computer, to change writing, and reading, in unexpected ways.
posted by Scott Schuer | 7:06 AM
|
0 comments
