It’s always refreshing to read a piece about teaching that is clearly written by someone who is not a teacher, but a scholar. Is this too sarcastic a statement to make about our friend Don? Based upon the reading of his article, I don’t think so. So Donny, prescriptive structure isn’t good enough for your students; well, let’s take a look at the examples that form the bases for your argument.
Stewart begins by letting us know that composition has a history, and I am intrigued. Unfortunately, the history lesson is largely overshadowed while Mr. Stewart verbally backhands the unfortunate “teachers at this stage.” I can totally see his point. These lost souls trying to teach composition to a room full of adolescents who would rather be somewhere else are focusing on structure, grammar, and punctuation. Barbarians! Mr. Stewart is, of course, correct in his assumption that “[t]eachers at this stage do not know that they have inherited the worst features of late nineteenth century composition teaching” (135). If only they knew the history of their discipline, they would know what they should be emphasizing. What these Neanderthals should be doing is “read[ing] and assimilat[ing] recent research on invention, arrangement, and style; on protocol analysis and problem-solving; on rhetorical epistemology;”…wait, wait; where are the concrete examples I can actually use; where are the examples I can put into practice in my classroom to replace those “outdated modes”?
Well silly cynic, I’m glad you asked. One possibility is new and improved Grammar B. Stewart is kind enough to include two solid examples. While these examples are sure to gain someone’s interest, I am doubtful they would elicit the desired response from anyone with the authority to help. On the other hand, if the plaintiff had used even the most basic rhetorical strategies as those taught by Mark Harmon in Summer School, which came out only four years AFTER this article was written (1983), I imagine the response would be more in line with the author’s expectation.
In all seriousness, this article was written to reprimand an education force more than twenty years ago. While it may have been insightful then, the real modern teachers of writing (I am referring to those individuals in the classrooms that ALL students must reside) are forced to teach measurable skills. They are asked to creatively instruct their students with the looming knowledge that the students will soon be judged, along with their teachers, with a standardized measuring stick that has no place for Grammar B. If I sound bitter, it is because Stewart’s voice is all too reminiscent of the other voices of authority asking for something that is beyond reach of the current educational system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that Stewart is out of touch with how education is executed in the new century. There is no possible way that this article could anticipate what it would be like now. Odds are (and this is only conjecture) that back in '83 Stewart saw some real potential for change in the way that composition is/was taught. Unfortunately, the way that schools are run now is more like a business: pack 'em in, prove to the board that your kids are doing well so that you can get more funding, over-work and underpay your teachers so that they burn out. That sounds like a great idea to me, too.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm not asking for you to accept Stewart, because I had a beef with him too (especially grammar B, yech! Can you imagine reading Great Expectations in IM form?), what I am asking is, where's your real beef? Is it with Stewart and other idealists like him, or is it with the school system that has no way (nor intention) of taking literary theory (theories) into account when forming curriculum?
The reason that I ask is because you seemed to have a really extreme reaction to Stewart. I don't see that he was demanding that teacher's change, I see that he was hoping for the rules to change, and I don't really think that there is anything wrong with that.
I agree, too, with your assertion that Stewart offers very little insight into how the situation for writing teachers might change, and that he only points fingers. And his extreme idealism, again, was a little irritating. But I was surprised that you didn't find anything redeeming in his essay. Perhaps his idea about computers aiding in grammar correction? Or that, from a linguistics perspective (or at least linguistics as far as I learned them), he offers some pretty decent insight into the stress that we are putting on students grammatically (139).
I'm definitely not asking you to take Stewart too seriously, I just thought I would throw out some ideas on some ways you might not think reading his article was a total waste of time...