The New and Improved, Never Before Seen Philosophy

Over the course of the last semester, my teaching philosophy has been altered in several ways. These changes have come about primarily because of my exposure to theorists who have already made their marks in the field of composition, but I have also been influenced by my professors and fellow students. I have, however, held on to some of the beliefs I espoused in the first version of this statement from the beginning of class. If I had to point to the most significant, though obvious, focus for my newfound philosophy, it would have to be balance. Too many of the theorists are so entrenched in their individual stands that they neglect to see that a balance between themselves and their opposite complement one another to make the surest path to excellent composition instruction, and that is where I come in.

The first major point that I have found balance within is the argument of process or product instruction. While at the beginning of the semester I was very much for product driven instruction, my research of Donald Murray has changed my mind. This may seem odd because most the class seems very interested in the larger debate between Elbow and Bartholomae, but for me the two sides are too charged; neither leaves much room for my new favorite term, balance. Murray, on the other hand, promotes a nice melding of the two ideas that I think works nicely in both theory and practice. This theory is product driven but process oriented. The key is establishing and maintaining a goal or “product” from the outset, but at the same time allowing the product to be changeable as the writing process runs its course. Not only does this sound good on paper, but it has also worked well in my class since I presented my lecture. I no longer allow my students to begin writing without first stating their intention in very precise language. They must then construct and outline that reaches toward this goal as closely as possible. Only when the drafting stage begins do I allow the students to alter their work as they see fit. The results have been better than I expected.

The other major change to my previous theory regards the treatment of argument. I already felt that all good writing is a form of argument, but it was not until our discussion of Graff that I realized the disservice I had been inflicting on my students. I often feared the chance that my own opinions might politicize the class and destroy the opportunity for the students to express their own thoughts; what I found after reading Graff’s work was that by not politicizing the classroom, I was not really forcing the students to take a side and practice the art of argument. This problem has been remedied. I now take every opportunity available to me to force the students into engaging me and the other students. While it is still a fine line to walk in terms of veiling my true feelings, the results, like those of Murray’s teaching, have greatly improved my classroom. Most of the students appear comfortable defending their points more concretely, and they are far more likely to challenge my statements in the class, albeit with a tone of mutual respect.

The one hard-line issue that has not been altered, even by the overwhelming support of the majority of the theorist toward the contrary, is my feeling that grammar and sentence structure still have an important place in the teaching of composition. Perhaps it is my place as a secondary teacher that will not let me drift into the collegiate mindset that sees through the comma-splices, the run-on sentences, or the fragments. What I am sure of is that a language with rules must continue to have those rules validated and supported with more than a cursory nod from the gray-hair at the front of the room. As I have seen on countless occasions, the student that has mastery over the rules of grammar trounces the student who does not, regardless of how much the second student may know of rhetoric or literary theory. This is a fundamental rule of education, regardless of how many bestselling authors claim it is not; they are not teaching the same students I am.

On a less harsh note, the last of my points is a balance that I have reached between my previous theory and the experiences I have had this semester in relation to the role of the teacher. I have always been a proponent of the student’s voice being a partial guide in the administration of the classroom; however, the subject has always been sensitive because I had never clearly given any thought as to where I stood regarding the idea of a student centered classroom. If I had been asked at the beginning of the semester if I ran a student centered classroom, I would undoubtedly answered yes. After listening to numerous discussions on the subject, I must now admit that my previous understanding was flawed. Though I allow my students a voice, I do not allow them any direct power. My class is therefore student driven, rather than student centered. My understanding of the power structure, and thus the amount of control I cede to my students, has changed, forcing the application of shared power to be altered. I believe that once one establishes that he or she is in control, he or she can share power with the students more easily.