I really like the way Ivanic stresses through out this piece that her theory is meant as a process at work: a framework to work from and not necessarily a model. I like this idea, because once we attribute paradigm characteristics to a theory, it seems to suggest that the theory is sound enough to utilize for research methods and so on. Of course the knowledge that we accumulate about literacy and writing in general is obtained in this fashion, but I believe that some ideas are meant to be nurtured and revisited, so that the theory can be trialed among classrooms, students, and teachers first, making the theory recursive. It’s preemptive to test something on the basis of effectiveness when it’s in its pedagogical infancy. If we use certain strategical examples of literacy in a way that allows the model to expand and grow, then testing it first wastes resources, especially when some theorists are too quick to label something a failed model of literacy, instead of understanding that certain strategies can be utilized so that a theory, like Ivanic’s identification of the six discourses, can grow and expand our knowledge about writing and the teaching of writing, and eventually develop into a framework that can represent a model of teaching writing. She claims, “However, in the conclusion, I discuss how the framework can be applied to the study of a range of data concerning the learning and teaching of writing, and the discourses at work in these practices, and suggest how it can be extended to apply to the study of pedagogy where the teaching of writing is not separated from other aspects of literacy” (221).

The aspect that I want to articulate most and bring to the fore are italicized here, because writing, for so many years, has been separated, as though it is a skill that is something obtained in passing as the student makes their way through their education. In some way, we have approached teaching writing in a way that makes it a secondary skill to reading. We emphasize reading as the main aspect of ones education, and it makes sense why we would do this, because obviously one needs to be able to read in order to comprehend what their work is asking of them. However, I believe that reading and writing must be taught as a pair. In a perfect world (which I’m aware that this in not a perfect world) I would like to think that my students are devouring their reading assignments. I would like to assume they are doing so with passion and motivation. As I stated, I know this is not a perfect world, so to assume they are doing this is a mistake on my part. Thus, with that in mind, how can we assume that students are going to develop a voice in their writing, when the voices that they’re reading, are not speaking to them. The reason I say these voices are silent is because the students are not accustomed to attributing primacy to writing, so how can they have the skill of hearing voice, when they have not found their own?

Ivanic says, “’Academic literacy is a conceptualisation of literacy based on the beliefs that literacies are heterogeneous, are shaped by interests, epistemologies and power relations, have consequences for identity, and are open to contestation and change” Most certainly! This is what I meant by absence of voice in writing, mentioned above. The academic identity associated with writing is held on the back burner while students attempt to piece through text, and because they have not yet developed their own voice, or even been exposed to understanding what voice is, they read right over it as they are exposed to literature, and this may be where we lose them. They are reading with half an identity, and this is like playing baseball with one arm. One may be able to attempt it, but they very likely will not experience it , comprehensively. The power inherently associated with reading is in need of being transferred to writing, so that one is not privileged over the other. Then, and only then is it to our advantage to create and label pedagogical theories as a “model”.

Advertisements