At the end of the readings assigned for this week, I have two main points to raise about my satisfaction on the one hand and concerns as well as questions
1. Satisfaction
a. After reading the introduction and the first chapter from Casanave, C.P., I appreciated the author’s position about the relevance and balance of both process and product in writing process. A good product need to go through a series of process and process without end product does not make sense. P. 2.
b. Even if a couple of teaching methods emphasize on the teacher’s role as a coach, co-learner, collaborator (which is true), the author reminds teachers that, above all, they have another special and delicate role of decision-making about what to teach, how to teach it and why. Pp 7-8.
2. Concerns
One of the multiple aspects of the post-process era is about perceiving writing as a “sociopolitical artifact”, implying that any piece of writing should contribute to some extent, to social change. In my opinion, it is good to raise learners’ awareness about social, political and economical issues that society is facing. However, I am afraid that teachers may consciously/unconsciously get to cross the line and run the risk of changing a writing class into indoctrinating, campaigning, or lobbying sessions, which might be troublesome. Plus, why shouldn’t learners just write to express whatever touches their feeling and emotion: love, nature, trips, etc. Just art for art, I mean!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting comments about the socio-political nature of writing courses. We have a few other students who also think that a writing course should not include political and socioeconomic aspects of life (see John's blog). However, I wonder if we can ever detach the context from the classrooms? Is teaching of any kinda neutral action? Be ready to be put on the spot today!
ReplyDelete