Do a brainstorm of the tensions your might experience between your philosophy and the SFSU learning objectives (unit plan portfolio part 2).
I find myself leaning heavily toward B & P, so that brings up some tensions re: IRW. Of course, it's a bit of comparing apples and oranges, since B & P supply the entire course, but Goens only lays out some principals and objectives. Still, when Goens speaks of teaching idea-generating tools, I don't find a parallel in B & P. Writing, according to the latter, comes from reader response, essentially (expresssivist) to stimulating reading and through the process of revision; I don't find any explicit idea-generating techniques in FAC. Perhaps the biggest gap between the two models is time. B & P compress loads of education into one semester; the IRW program stretches over two semesters. This is critical to Goens' philosophy. Her ideas of community building and reader/writer development need to be learned "slowly," but most schools are unlikely to afford such luxury, so I find B & P's pragmatic approach more appealing, though it diverges from Goens'.
No comments:
Post a Comment