Timed Teaching

What kind of world will we build together?

… As asked by the CCCC in their principles for postsecondary teaching of writing guidelines. This question is not one that I would ask myself, oddly, as a writer. Though, it makes perfect sense. When we teach writing, and participate in the act of writing ourselves, we are building a world. Of course, we are helping build our own personal world, one that is filled with our own thoughts — ones that are fleshed out and ones that are half-baked. Though, we are also helping build the world because our thoughts contribute to a larger dialogue. Even if only one person reads a certain piece of writing, we are contributing to their world, and thus helping them get a better grasp of the world.

As the CCCC lists, there are many ways in which writing teachers an aid in building a world in which writing brings people together, rather than pit them against each other. Though, I cannot help but think the revisions to such ways as discussed by the CCCC are too idyllic for our world. How will writing teachers be able to make such changes? It cannot be an overnight fix… if not, then when will these changes occur?

While reading this list of principles, I envisioned one singular writing teacher who embodies most of these principles. Over the last four years, I have been around so many writing teachers, yet I can only picture one who may be deemed as picture perfect to the CCCC. All of the other writing teachers have some of these principles down, but not others. These professionals are almost there, but not quite. This only adds to my concern of the timeline in which these changes can readily occur, and if we are only just speaking into space, or if there is a chance we can rip the old carpet from under us to replace it with something new.

The outcomes of teaching writing

With a high level of honesty, I would like to admit that while reading some of the outcomes listed by the WPA, I found them to be quite boring (specifically the ones listed for rhetorical knowledge). The writer with the certain intelligentsia within me knows this list to be quite important, and aspects of it I am still working to master, though from an outside perspective, can see why many students are driven away from writing. Many of these outcomes, not just the rhetorically-centered ones, take time and effort to achieve and be used at a level that is effective. Though, students who do not envision writing as an integral part of their lives may not want to take the time to go through such processes to get to these outcomes.

But, writing is an integral part of everyone’s lives. From writing down something as simple as a reminder to do a chore, to publishing ground-breaking research, we all need writing in different ways. This is said in the outline for knowledge of conventions, as expectations are not universal due to the differences in intention among disciplines. Though, some aspects should be understood by all parties, no matter the discipline, such as understanding the reasoning behind the varying techniques, practicing said techniques, and overall gaining experience using those techniques. After readings these outcomes, I am unsure if there truly is a writer out there that is well-rounded, meaning across the board completely understanding of what is different between writing for English and for example Psychology, but we can be well-rounded within our own discipline because there is so much to learn.

Standards by which we teach

When reading the standards according to the National Council of Teachers of English, the fact that the guidelines were lasted revised in 2007 jumped out at me, and not in a good way. I feel that so many aspects of society has changed (possibly because I was a 4-year-old child then and I am now 22 years of age) since then. I am unsure if I can recommend a routine timeline in which they should be changed, but this point brings to the surface several questions for me, including: what prompts a revision?; are the standards reviewed every year, every x amount of months?; who reviews them, and how does one qualify to be a reviewer?

Further, I would like to bring up another point the NCTE brings up in the introduction: “In other words, assessment is never merely a technical process. Assessment is always representational and interpretive because it involves representing children’s development.” Though, all of the times in which I remember being assessed on writing, from middle school and high school, felt very technical. It was always what was wrong, and never what had been done right, or better than the last time. Again, the timeline comes up here again. Do teachers have enough time to do this? To tell each student at every writing-based assessment what went wrong and what was done better? How can we allow for teachers to do this? Is it only on the teachers, or can students help other students?