interesting analysis

To paraphrase, all things are not explainable in the sense that they are useful to us. We have a deep need to enact things Symbolically. I am posting to save as link to a better source of this guy's thoughts.

This is a long talk, but you can skip to the comments about education by selecting the chapter. I started watching from Chapter 14 "Media Literacy". Chomsky discusses training of learners by preparation limited to passing the next test. His anecdote of a student who asked a question that a teacher did not have time to answer speaks to the overly structured framework that education exists in. Instructors are required to cover a specific amount of material which means that creative restructure of the class process is marginalized. Yet situated learning is a self creating process in which members should be able to contribute equally to the form and content of the class, especially in a democracy. A country that values equality and tolerance should have institutions that incorporate those morals into the practice of education. To return to evaluating the source, Chomsky has written Miseductation which criticizes the methods of the school systems in America and how they contradict patriotic values by generating conformity and non questioning submission to authority. Chomsky touches on the treatment of students as vessels to be filled with the most important thinkers thoughts until the test day, which obviously is not valuable learning. IN his discussion of the Nobel prize winner he points out that the information age and the role of technology can yield a benefit if used in a 'cooperative effort' (e.g. education) to come to terms with the knowledge that is available.

Patrick Hartwell discusses the value of teaching formal grammar by reviewing its history as a fundamental building block to the development of good writing. By determining a set of definitions for grammar Hartwell shows that the process of absorbing correct grammar usage occurs within native speakers naturally by exposure to the language; even young children are able to use complex grammatical structures with skill. Yet when sorted through the scientific lens and broken down into categories and labels the study of grammar cannot explain how learning the component rules of language will prove valuable to overall writing ability. Instead Hartwell suggests and I agree that "one learns to control the language of print by manipulating language in meaningful contexts, not by learning about language in isolation, as by the study of formal grammar" (125). Language, Hartwell says is "verbal clay, to be molded and probed, shaped and reshaped, and, above all, enjoyed" (125). So language is play dough; it is supposed to be fun; it should not be something you do because you have to, but because you want to; you do it because you like to do it; it is about process not product. What can tutors/teachers do that can encourage students to view writing not as a means to an end, but as a valuable tool of expression, a concrete manifestation of focused energy that is representative of an individual's attempt to express? This need to express is at work on us all of the time; our survival depends on it. That is not an exaggeration; a closed mouth does not get fed. By funneling our thoughts into words, even if the result is an approximation of the truth of our energetic pursuits, there is still a result. Words do work on people because people feel. Maybe some of the frustration that freshman feel is a result of the heaviness of the rulebook; certain grammar rules affect student grades, certain constraints are imposed by the teachers rubric and the teacher as well a

This source details the author's experience of teaching a course called 'Experimental Writing' to college seniors. Using several chapters from the book Free Play by Steven Nachmanovitch, the instructor introduces the topic of play as an important element of the course. Having read the book myself I think that it is a worthy read, and it has influenced my approach to academic projects by widening my perception of my action as not just reactionary study toward a grade, but play within a field offered by the instructor where success and failure are accepted as process and there is no fixed upper limit to achievement. In other words the writing is can be thought of as a kind of 'funktionslust' a pleasure of doing, not simply an action toward an objective. To create motivation within students requires that they let go of the dire seriousness that school is associated with; school is something to be completed out of necessity not something that can offer individuals new insight to themselves, or the aspects of themselves that have been suppressed by conformity and fear. The author does not entirely endorse the use of Nachmanovitch's text in 'traditional writing classes' because the text discourages many of the elements that are at hand in the traditional approach to teaching (like writing for a letter grade). I chose to be an English major because I felt the most freedom of expression within my English classes; I was offered a choice of what topics to engage with. But increasingly specific expectations from teachers handcuffed my raw creativity. Even so, I think that an increased degree of freedom within writing classes would boost student enthusiasm. The question then is how do we increase the freedom of expression for students of basic writing, where there are necessary modes of measure for the articulation of the chosen subjects (other than simply allowing them to choose their subjects)? To what degree does the rubric shape student identity by for

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1973.75.1.02a00050/pdf

This is an anthropology article examining the role that play has in learning among primates, puppies and humans. I am specifically interested in his comments about play as part of the life process of these animals. As I read Casanave the metaphor of games lends itself to incorporating play as a legitimate aspect of learning to write. As with video games where the consequences are non real for failure, with academic games there is a pressure to compete that does not lend itself easily to the concept of play. It would be nice to remind basic writers not to take themselves so seriously, that there seriousness and apathy will limit their successes, but how can we do so in a way that they will see themselves as explorers playing in their respective fields? Maybe the rules have become so standardized, so much part of the experience of the 'game' that the 'game' is no longer recognized as such and the possibility of play is quashed.

I think that to become a better overall writer I have to become familiar with the many fields of knowledge application and some of the rules for each. This article is categorized under the anthropological umbrella but I think it is useful for its commentary on 'rules' as well as its statement of play as a means to an end. Maybe english majors are sort of like arbiters of meaning between all of the more specific fields of knowledge to explore.

In summary, this article is worth a glance for its commentary on play as a cross species means of developing a more effective existence that is better adapted to its environment.

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/pedagogy/Pedagogy.htm
This source discusses the historical development of rhetorical pedagogy in which observation of best practices (speeches, texts) precedes analysis and imitation. Before success can be achieved personally, it must be identified and acknowledged in other prior examples. However while it is possible to watch a speaker give a speech and determine what qualities make it effective or not, watching a writer write would not be of much use in and of itself. As readers and writers we have to engage with the text and with one another to determine our position on the field of the discourse. This source is a little thin by itself, but the site is excellent.