Bizzell:Oh I See...

It was very interesting that Scott got bumped and Graff was presented in the same week as Bizzell and Bartholomae, because the three seem to be on different parts of the same ground. I agree that Bizzell seemed to take a lot of ideas from others and bunch them all together, but I did not think this made her an academic copy-cat, so to speak (though who in the academic community could not be accused of borrowing ideas?). She merely took those ideas and created a more well-rounded view of teaching. I think that the problem with a lot of the theories and theorists we have encountered is that there is just too much information to understand everything completely, but I will do my best to break down Shaynee's presentation.

While Shaynee was explaining the inner and outer-directive theories, I could see points of both that were worth identifying with, though they did, indeed, have very different ways of approaching language learning. To me, however, balance is always best achieved when two separate ideas have the potential to come together. Inner-directed dicourse theory seemed more basic than the outer. It asserts that we have "innate capacities to learn language," while outer-directed discourse theory asserts that "innate capacities have no expression outside discourse communities," meaning that language cannot be learned in isolation. We, as humans, may have the capacity for language, but without a social construct, language cannot be learned. Usually, the social construct is a given, such as family of sorts, but that, according to outer-directed discourse theory, should not be taken for granted. 

The outer-directed discourse theory was easier to identify with after studying so much of Bartholomae. It, however, addressed something that Bartholomae did not, which is that each student has been potentially exposed to different sorts of language and culture, and this exposure can put some students at an advantage over other students. Also, our native discourse community often determines which social discourse community we are exposed to or, indeed, how well we function in different discourse communities. Literature, however, seems to be the great equalizer. What students are exposed to can immerse them in different communities from that which they grew up with.

Another concept that Shaynee presented us with was additive vs. holistic teaching. Additive teaching seems to take advantage of the inner-directed discourse in that it assumes that all students are on the same writing level (or should be) and that writing of students can be quantified by "model essays," and that exposure to this sophisticated writing can make students better writers (like putting a person into a hyperbaric chamber with candy canes and teddy bears and hoping it will make them a better person). It is also not to say that different sorts of writing will not inspire and encourage students to be better writers, which is where the holistic teaching comes in.

I still do not, however, believe that teachers can be trusted not to abuse their position of power when it comes to "incorporating societal values, beliefs, and cultures." We are all human, after all, but it is a nice idea.

As with other ideas, I feel I will take an leave different parts of Bizzell's pedagogy, but it was a nice presentation, and I really dug the radioactive puzzle pieces.