Exploratory Essay

Through Smagorinsky’s writings, I have had a good chance to examine a few of the different teaching theories out there. Smagorinsky has a preference for what he calls the task-oriented approach to teaching, where students first learn simple skills that serve to scaffold more complex skills. However, he also notes that what we call “best practice” may be nothing more than a myth. Though he considers his approach to be the most effective, other methods are more widely used, such as the process approach as advocated by Murray and Atwell, and the more traditional approach using models and the five-paragraph theme. The use of these different approaches suggest that no research has yet shown any of these approaches to be vastly superior to another. Rather, whether a teacher fits into one theoretical approach over another depends upon their given background in schooling, both in high school and in the college education program, as well as any external determining factors as the community, school administration, and the culture of one’s colleagues. All teachers contend that their methods produce the best results. What’s important to Smagorinsky, however, is not to consider which method is the best, but that, as a teacher, whatever method of teaching you do use, that you at least be a reflective teacher who keeps the needs of your students as a first priority.

Smagorinsky laments a lack of empirical data to back up or refute the ideas that many theorists repute. Very little research indicates the impact of a theoretical framework on actual student response and performance. He says that many theorists simply claim their own argument is correct but don’t back it up empirically. This affects future teachers immensely, because, though theory is important, without explicit data or examples, it can be a little difficult to translate the theory to practice. No matter what theoretical approach we, as new teachers, think is best, we are likely going to experience a sort of culture shock once we find ourselves in our new teaching job. Practical applications of our theoretical framework will no doubt be tested by actual classroom experience in ways that make us and others doubt our abilities as a teacher. It’s a scary thought, and one that perhaps suggests why so many teachers stick with the traditional approach of the five-paragraph theme and the classics. These methods have been used for decades, centuries even. Many prospective teachers are familiar with the five-paragraph theme, and they are familiar with the classics, whether or not they enjoyed these assignments as high school students. Having this sense of familiarity makes the classroom experience less intimidating for the new teacher. However, it also produces an experience that is less than stimulating for both students and teachers. For more teachers to begin to teach more creatively perhaps requires a little more familiarity with stepping outside the teaching box. This is where empirical data would be crucial. Though it wouldn’t be firsthand practice, reading about actual classroom practices and their results could help give prospective teachers greater familiarity with more creative teaching methods.

This becomes even more important when you consider Smagorinsky’s research on multiple intelligences. He finds that limiting all compositions in the English class to simple five-paragraph themes only addresses two of the seven intelligences of people: logic and linguistic. Making the classroom experience more interesting, exciting, and engaging requires a greater variety in the assignments and projects assigned. The five-paragraph theme in itself is not a very intellectually engaging writing assignment. It creates a boring classroom environment for both student and teacher, though I understand its necessity in our culture of standardized tests. Still, I can’t imagine reading the same vacuous five-paragraph essays week after week. In order to engage students on many levels of intelligences a teacher should allow students to explore topics and issues using different types of compositions: poems, short stories, drawings, interpretive dances, skits, musical compositions, journals, collages, multigenre projects, and the many more types of projects out there. These allow students whose logical intelligence isn’t a strength the chance to engage a text or topic where they might not have showed any interest while using a more traditional approach. It also helps develop the minds of students in different ways and gives them the opportunity to tackle a variety problems using their newfound skills.

Perhaps the two biggest problems with using more creative compositions is time and assessment. By time I mean the teacher must take up more of their time outside of the classroom creating lesson plans for these more creative assignments, as well as creating the assignments themselves. Of course, some of these requirements of time can be taken care of by using class time for students to present or perform their compositions. And time really is a major issue for teachers, I would say, though some would argue that a teacher should know and accept the burden of time that will be placed on them. However, the reality is that teacher burnout occurs early in one’s teaching career because it is difficult to manage time spent in the classroom, time working on lesson plans and grading papers, and time spent meeting the needs of your friends and family, not to mention your own needs. For this reason, in part, the five-paragraph theme is a staple among educators. Fast and easy to grade. Content is often graded as structure and form. Assessment is simple. A teacher glances through the essay, marking off points for spelling or grammatical problems, perhaps for writing in the margins of their paper, counting off the number of paragraphs and the number of sentences per paragraph, and, ta-da!, you have a graded paper. Assessing something like an interpretive dance or a musical composition is trickier. If a teacher is untrained in the nuances of dance of music, how are they to accurately grade the student’s composition? Do you just award students for effort? If so, you risk students doing the funky chicken – though I suppose it would be wise to ask students to explain their composition as well. For a teacher to engage students with a less well-established type of assignment certainly means more work and thinking on the part of the teacher, but the rewards may well be worth it.

I shouldn’t forget to add a third concern to using more creative compositions: that is their appropriateness in the eyes of the public and administrators. Many parents, no doubt, have no problem accepting the five-paragraph theme as an appropriate learning tool for their child. Many, perhaps most, administrators also, no doubt, see its utility, largely because their district is rewarded with glowing praise for having outstanding test scores. However, both parents and administrators may have a more difficult time seeing the appropriateness of an interpretive dance or a musical composition. Though Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet is considered a brilliant musical composition, parents and administrators will likely have a difficult time finding a musical composition an acceptable form of interpretation and analysis. This is unfortunate because it means teachers are discouraged from opening new doors to students.

Parental and administrative concerns aren’t the only things teachers have to contend with. Smagorinsky also points to the influences of the college education program a student attends, the style of teaching of the student’s cooperating teacher during student teaching, and pressure from colleagues once the student is hired as a teacher. From some of Smagorinsky’s research, this last point seems to be the strongest. He found that one beginning teacher, though her administrator encouraged using forms of writing other than the five-paragraph theme, was pressured by colleagues to use the five-paragraph theme because they made her believe her reputation was at stake. It seems that I, and my fellow classmates, have had a better education in terms of questioning the effectiveness of the five-paragraph theme, than did the woman Smagorinsky studied, but we will nonetheless have to contend with the reality that outside pressures will possibly work against forms of writing that don’t conform to the standards a school’s and community’s culture has set. I don’t mean this last point to be discouraging to the teacher, but to serve as a reminder that a teacher should be flexible to the needs of a school or community. If a teacher is to allow more creative forms of expression in the classroom, they may have to do so under external pressure and by fitting it into an otherwise rigid curriculum. Perhaps, as future generations discuss the problems in education, changes will be made so teachers don’t have to feel so constrained. Until then, we have to work with what we have.

Works Cited

Burroughs, Robert, and Peter Smagorinsky. “The Secondary English Curriculum and Adolescent Literacy.” Handbook of Adolescent Literary Research. Eds. Leila Christenbury, Randy Bomer, and Peter Smagorinsky. New York: The Guilford Press, 2009. 170-182. Print.

Smagorinsky, Peter. “Constructing Meaning in the Disciplines: Reconceptualizing Writing across the Curriculum as Composing across the Curriculum.” American Journal of Education 103.2 (1995): 160-184. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085575>.

Smagorinsky, Peter. “Is It Time to Abandon the Idea of “Best Practices” in the Teaching of English?.” English Journal 98.6 (2009): 15-22. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://proxy.lib.wayne.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/pqdweb?did=1777697361&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=14288&RQT=309&VName=PQD>.

Smagorinsky, Peter. “Responding to Student Writing.” Teaching English by Design: How to Create and Carry Out Instructional Units. Ed. Lisa Luedeke. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2008. 96-108. Print.

Smagorinsky, Peter. “The Aware Audience: Role-Playing Peer-Response Groups.” The English Journal 80.5 (1991): 35-40. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/818263>.

Annotated Bibliography #5

Smagorinsky, Peter, and Michael W. Smith. “The Nature of Knowledge in Composition and Literary Understanding: The Question of Specificity.” Review of Educational Research 62.3 (1992): 279-305. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://rer.sagepub.com/content/62/3/279>.

This article looks at three prevailing theories about how students transfer knowledge to a writing or reading task: general, task-specific, and community-specific knowledge. General knowledge contends that “no matter what you are writing about, the basic steps involved in writing are almost always the same” (qtd. 282). Murray, for example, says his writing process can be applied no matter what the writing project. Task-specific knowledge says that one must have further knowledge of the specific genre or form before they can effectively engage in writing it. As Applebee writes, “Essay exams require one set of approaches, research papers another” (qtd. 287-8). Community-specific knowledge claims that within each genre or form a writer must have specific knowledge depending on who or what they are writing their piece for. For example, while film critics and judges both rely on argumentation, their separate forms of argumentation are so different that the two could not swap places and still remain effective. The article does not take a stance on these issues, but rather reports on them and points out the necessity of all three. There are certainly cases where all three are equally valid.

Annotated Bibliography #4

Smagorinsky, Peter. “The Writer’s Knowledge and the Writing Process: A Protocol Analysis.” Research in the Teaching of English 25.3 (1991): 336-364. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171416>.

Smagorinsky performs a study to determine the most effective method of teaching English. The three methods of the study are the model procedure, where students imitate a model text; general procedures, which are based on Donald Murray’s theories that recommend students should “choose their own topics and explore them through unrestricted writing” (340); and task-specific procedures, which are based on Hillocks’s view that learning specific writing skills creates the best written work. Smagorinsky’s study leans towards Hillocks’s view as the strongest because it develops the strongest critical thinking skills. However, the study was small, so the results aren’t entirely conclusive. The problem, however, is time. The models procedure is the quickest to teach, but it “puts the great burden of how to write on students” (361). The other two are more time-consuming, especially with curriculum demands. I’m not sure I agree with Smagorinsky’s conclusions about what is best. He doesn’t take into account the role of revision. Task-specific procedures seem far too demanding on teachers and seem like an extension of model procedures. It seems that Murray’s procedures for writing would lead to more healthy writing habits and thinking skills down the road for students.

Annotated Bibliography #3

Johnson, Tara Star, Leigh Thompson, Peter Smagorinsky, and Pamela G. Fry. “Learning to Teach the Five-Paragraph Theme.” Research in the Teaching of English 38.2 (2003): 136-176. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171635>.

A study that seeks to determine possible reasons why teachers continue to teach the five-paragraph theme despite such strong criticism against it. The authors follow one teacher, Leigh Thompson, from graduation from a well-regarded education college to her student teaching and then to her first year as a hired teacher. The study finds that Leigh’s lack of instruction in teaching writing contributed to her inability to call into question the effectiveness of the five-paragraph theme. She learned how to teach writing from a cooperating teacher who teaches that “content is if they follow directions,” meaning, in part, not writing in the margins (156). Despite an open-ended administration at her first job, her colleagues pressure her to teach to the test in order to make herself and the school look good by keeping test scores high. The study warns critics not to “oversimplify intentions of the legions of teachers who take this approach” because they may be thoughtful educators otherwise (171). The study’s main setback is its lack of data on student writing. Otherwise it is a very interesting look into the thought processes and influences of a beginning teacher.

Annotated Bibliography #2

Smagorinsky, Peter. “‘Growth through English’ Revisited.” The English Journal 91.6 (2002): 23-29. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/821812 >.

Smagorinsky discusses a book written by John Dixon in the 1960s, with subsequent editions, called Growth through English. He is impressed by the way Dixon’s ideas seem to come “from post-millenium schools rather than the schools of the 1960s” (24). Dixon stresses a student-oriented classroom rather than a teacher and text-directed classroom, and the problems he and his colleagues faced mirror those teachers face today: an externally-driven curriculum. Dixon argued that student growth is most important, particularly through discussion, writing about personal experience, and drama. However, Smagorinsky warns against romanticizing student-centered approaches: he says that in “writing workshops, we see nice, wholesome kids writing about nice wholesome topics” (29). Real life is much different. Smagorinsky points out that often one’s own personal growth comes at the expense of another, and this can happen often, such as through misogynistic language of a student, or bigoted writing. Thus a teacher needs to set some authoritative boundaries. This is a useful warning for teachers who choose to forego any authority. And what seemed a routine article about student-centered approaches became a much more practical guide for classroom management and guidelines. Student-centered approach is good as long as it has some limits.

Annotated Bibliography #1

Smagorinsky, Peter. “Multiple Intelligences in the English Class: An Overview.” The English Journal 84.8 (1995): 19-26. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/821183>.

Smagorinsky discusses the role of multiple intelligences in the English classroom. He criticizes the Western notion that intelligence “can be measured quantitatively through standardized tests” (20), as this idea has led to a dependence on analytical writing in the classroom. Standardized tests measure only two of the seven different intelligences: linguistic and logical. To succeed in an activity or career often relies on more than this. Smagorinsky argue that activities like dancing and drawing not only achieve “the same developmental processes [students] would experience in writing,” but others that they would not achieve in writing (22). His own classroom study demonstrates the development of a student’s interpretation and understanding of a text through non-writing “texts” such as drawing, dancing, and creating musical compositions. The examples are convincing in demonstrating how by engaging different intelligences through other creative activities students gain a richer understanding of literature than if they focused solely on writing compositions that engage only logic and linguistic intelligences. It would also make for a more interesting classroom experience. The problem, as Smagorinsky poses but does not answer, lies in assessment of these other creative activities.