Today's Featured Authors: Rose, Trimbur, and George and Trimbur

Sometimes I wonder just how researchers come up with methods to test their subjects for certain aptitudes, intelligences, qualities, traits, field dependence/independence--you name it. Since I am not an expert in cognition, I cannot speak in great specifics here, but Witkin and company's logic just wasn't there for me. Did anyone see the absurdity here before Mike Rose? Rods and degrees? Embedded figures? I can see how these might provide some insight into a person's tendencies and personality, but to equate them somehow to intelligence is a real stretch. And, then to further make assumptions about literacy using Piaget verged on ridiculous.

Rose's problems with Witkin's construct do seem rather obvious. I agree with Rose that test results often provide a means for educators (and theorists) to label and assume rather than attempting to teach writing in a new or different way. Why is it that many educators and theorists alike cannot accept the fact that a one-size-fits all approach has no basis in reality? Just how can a pedagogy rely on cognitive reductionism? It seems obvious to me that, although humans show similarities and patterns in cognition, our brains just do not function exactly the same way. Students are not one-dimensional, and nor should this be our approach to teaching writing. Ask two people to perform a simple task such as making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and, though the end result will look and taste similar if the same ingredients are used, the means to the end will have differed. Something as simple as making a PBJ reveals differences from something as minute as how one holds the knife to something as crucial as the amount of peanut butter and jelly used. And, as Rose points out, if these people are told they are being judged on their process and the end product, as with the tests of Witkins, et al, it will change the results. However, when Mike Rose appears to see no difference in the cognition between literate and illiterate people, I just cannot wholeheartedly agree. True, some poor writers resist “developing that facility out of anger or fear or as an act of identity”—boy have I seen that at work this week—but if the facility has not been nurtured and encouraged all along, I think a handicap develops. I equate this to learning a foreign language. Studies and experience have shown that the younger the better at learning a foreign language—one will actually develop the ability to create the sounds consistent with that language; younger students are able to become more fluent and sound more like a native speaker, which I parallel to readability and voice in writing. If someone has not been exposed to the written word at an early stage in their brain development, then it would seem that those cerebral connections may not work as well.

Trimbur had me a little confused at first, but I think I have him pegged—he seems to be in the collaborative learning corner, but only if students/and teachers use it properly. I do see where his perspectives and discussion of the two lines of criticism of collaborative learning have merit, from stifling individual voice and enforcing conformity to analyzing its contribution to learning, with too much emphasis placed on the accepted “canon” and what students are supposed to take away from the collaboration. True, there are times that teachers use collaborative learning as part of their required “LFS” curriculum with no thought as to knowledge which would result from it. Or, they use it as a means to “occupy” their students for lack of something equally as beneficial. On the other hand, I would just hope that a teacher who reads this will not err on the side of caution and decide not to incorporate collaborative learning. As a continuing student myself, I see the pedagogical value in collaborative learning. And, as long as there is a common goal rather than an undemocratic drive for a common consensus, there is no reason to believe that individual voice would be lost. I have seen firsthand as a teacher the value in collaborative learning—right now my students are working on reflective essays (sort of a memoir) and I provide time for them to bounce ideas off of each other. I have asked for some feedback from them—they appreciate and are excited about the collaborative effort in creating their essays. I do, of course, agree with Trimbur when he suggests that using collaborative learning to discuss literature and come to a conclusion does put a limit on individual interpretation. But, being able to discuss literature in a group setting allows for an exchange of ideas which promotes learning and understanding as long as having the “right” answer is not the goal.
To go back to Rose through George and Timbur, incorporating cultural studies into composition pedagogy seems to be a solution or one of the solutions to the problems Rose addresses in “Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism.” Those opposed to cultural studies are likely the ones who continue to teach as they had been taught, using the canon as the word of God and insisting students use a specific process when they compose. As George and Trimbur (or at least I think it was them—my head is beginning to spin) discuss, students often read reluctantly for school and read something “fun” for themselves. Students need and want to be able to connect with what they are reading and writing, and what better way to do this than through cultural studies. Obviously, teachers need to tread carefully here unless they teach at Milton Hershey or some similar type of academic world where the needs of the students far outweigh the needs and desires of the powers that be.