Like Bizzell, Bartholomae emphasizes the importance of preparing students for academic discourse. Students must find their place within culture and must be self-aware. Bartholomae seems to keep it pretty simple: students must learn their place within cultural contexts, the analysis of academic texts must be at the center of the thought process, and engaging in academic discourse is the ultimate goal for these students.
The debate between Elbow and Bartholomae makes public a discourse on the appropriate approaches to composition and language. Comparing ideas of social versus individual contexts of writing, and trust versus skepticism of language are interesting disputes. I agree with Bartholomae that language should be distrusted because it is constantly being manipulated in order to exert power, sell products, and persuade audiences. However, what may be more interesting are the similarities between Elbow and Bartholomae. Both see the importance of approaching writing as a process and carrying out a great deal of writing. Students also need to develop self-confidence in their critical thinking and writing processes; this empowers students to further develop their voice.
Hearing how Bartholomae’s ideas worked in relation to Elbow’s was important and very beneficial. Emily’s presentation helped to clarify the argument between these two scholars and to see how this debate has contributed to larger ideas of composition in the academic setting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the biggest problem that I have with Elbow's theories of composition is that "individual contexts of writing" seem more appropriate for either creative writing or private writing, rather than compositional writing, which is the field in which Elbow is making his argument.
ReplyDeleteExpressive writing, however, is helpful in opening people up to the possibility that writing can be more than something a student has to do in order to get by in college, which can be important.
I'm glad I helped clarify the argument for you. I'm still a tad ambivalent.