Divided against Ourselves

James Marshall discusses the articles that came out blasting the U.S. education system because we were supposedly losing our “unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation [which] is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world” (114)—a “Nation at Risk”. I found this concept extremely irrational. Students’ education process is not supposed to be based on the possible economic gains of the U.S. I do not send my children to school to so they can boost the world economy. I send them to school to enhance their knowledge and discover their passions.
Marshall goes on to say these particular articles raised such a firestorm that we have been revamping the educational system ever since. Each president since the prescribed “Nation at Risk” has added and/or deleted policies that they felt were advantageous to them and their party rather then what was beneficial to the U. S. students. The downside to throwing out strong verbiage like “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (114), is that it causes short-sighted, short-term fixes that cause more harm than benefit. For instance, the school systems are dealing with President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” philosophy, which put pressure on schools to gather all the students that were struggling and save them! Of course, the extra money, training, and supplies to help these students did not materialize, yet the expectation to whip students into educational shape is still there.
Over the weekend I went to EMU's play “No Child.” As you can guess this play exposed issues that the “No Child Left Behind” has caused in schools especially schools with a depressed socioeconomic status. The most poignant line to me was the reference to being compared to a five-year-old Chinese student. Our fear of not being number one blinds us to what is really important to American children, which is to help each child find their voice, use their voice, grow their voice, and make changes with their voice. This may sound philosophical, and maybe it is a bit—but if one really thinks about it educating students with a focus on the students rather than a test score or economic gain, we will achieve this vision.

Performative Literacy

In my ENGL 585 – Literature for Teachers we had a guest speaker via Skype, Sheridan Blau a renowned professor from Columbia University. Our discussion was based on his article “Performative Literacy: The Habits of Mind of Highly Literate Readers,”which broke down his theory on how students build their literacies through reading and re-reading tougher text. He lists three major literacies: textual literacy, intertextual literacy and performative literacy. His definition of textual literacy is the “procedural knowledge that allows a reader to move from summarizing or retelling a story, to constructing a plausible interpretation, to reflecting critically on a text.”Intertextual literacy is “prior conceptual and informational knowledge that readers need to makes sense of what they read.” Performative literacy is the literacy you gain by being proactive in your learning process by combining your textual, intertextual, and performative literacies together. Blau breaks down “performative literacy in action” by listing seven traits one uses to gain the ability to read and decipher more complex texts.
The seven traits are as follows:
1. A capacity for sustained focused attention. 2. Willingness to suspend closure-to entertain problems rather than avoid them. 3. Willingness to take risks-to offer interpretative hypostheses, to respond honestly, to challenge texts, to challenge normative readings. 4. Tolerance for failure-a willingness to re-read and re-read again. 5. Tolerance for ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty. 6. Intellectual generosity and fallibility: willingness to change one’s mind, to appreciate alternative visions, and to engage in methodological believing as well as doubting. 7. A capacity to monitor and direct one’s own reading process: metacognitive awareness.
I identified with all of these traits and I have seen students who are so fearful of failing or admitting that they don’t understand a reading that they will say nothing in class. We discussed how canonical texts can have this kind of impact because the texts are so highly regarded that the students don’t feel that they can question and/or challenge the author’s viewpoint. Along with these insights Blau listed three possible scenarios that one could try in a class setting to help students build their performative literacy.

Writing Processes and Practice

While observing a speech class I participated in the conversation about my writing processes and practices. When asked what my writing processes were, at first I was stymied by the question because I did not anticipate being involved in the discussion. However, I quickly gathered my thoughts and stated a few practices I do on a regular basis. I listened to the various practices the students stated, and one in particular was cited a lot, which was listening to music. While I would not consider this a process or a practice, the students surely did. When pressed to justify their answer those students stated that listening to music helped them focus and relieved the stress of writing. As for me, I need quiet to write and process my thoughts into a coherent piece of work.
In chapter four of Politics of Writing, Clark and Ivanič give examples of various writing processes. The first example and diagram is from Hayes and Flowers, which shows and discusses a “recursive process model.” This model depicts the planning, translating, and reviewing, along with monitoring, which is used to keep track of all the processes in motion. According to Clark and Ivanič this particular model leaves out the social aspect to the writing process, thereby making it a cognitive process and neglecting the social environment, which shapes the writer.
Both Clark and Ivanič prefer an “alternative view,” which expands on the process and practice of writing by developing and incorporating “socio-political identity, familiarity with genres, accumulating knowledge, opinions, and feelings for the writing task, and making use of familiar writing styles.” These particular processes and practices give the students control over how to shape and add depth to their work. The students can feel like they have a say in their paper and it becomes more than just an assignment. I like this alternative view better than Hayes and Flowers’, but if I had to go by Clark’s and Ivanič’s chart I would be overwhelmed with all the boxes, arrows, and swooping lines. I prefer the listed items on one of the previous pages. My reaction to the diagram makes me wonder what a student who is just starting to write might think of it. Would it be just as overwhelming? While I think having a consistent plan and process to one’s writing does help develop a better writer, I do not think having a diagram to map out the whole process each time is necessary. However, each student needs to find what works for them and continuously use that plan of action.
I find it interesting that various critics and theorists like to expound on a key word and when they do it does not match someone else’s idea. For instance, we just finished reading and commenting on Robert Yagelski and his theory on Praxis. He says, “I want to understand what it means to engage in writing as a practice of being, as a way of living together on the earth we share. I want to explore the idea of writing as praxis” His concept of practice is totally the opposite of Clark and Ivanič’s. Yagelski wants to have the practice of writing to free and expand the writer’s philosophies. While Clark and Ivanič allow students more freedom in their writing, practice is a part of following certain steps to complete a piece of work. The same word and two different interpretations, which one appeals to you?