重新思考议论文写作:超越教学结构,让学生参与批判性对话

IF 0.1 4区 文学 0 LITERATURE
CEA CRITIC Pub Date : 2021-09-02 DOI:10.1353/cea.2021.0021
Matt Seymour
{"title":"重新思考议论文写作:超越教学结构,让学生参与批判性对话","authors":"Matt Seymour","doi":"10.1353/cea.2021.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The issue of teaching form over content in writing instruction is one that scholars have been discussing for years. Historically, secondary educators in the U.S. have tended to emphasize teaching writing structure and made the ideational aspects of writing secondary to issues of form. Over the past 20 years, scholars from multiple disciplines such as rhetoric, education, and literacy have argued against the teaching of preset and replicable structures in favor of a more contextualized approach to writing. Despite the push for content over form by many scholars and teacher educators, an emphasis on form remains prevalent at the secondary level, especially when it comes to the teaching of argumentative writing. Given the persistence of the teaching of structure at the secondary level, an approach students bring with them to the post-secondary classroom, scholarly conversations would do well to consider the systemic issues that incentivize secondary teachers to privilege structure and form in their teaching because research has consistently found an emphasis on teaching structure insufficiently promotes students' growth in writing.","PeriodicalId":41558,"journal":{"name":"CEA CRITIC","volume":"83 1","pages":"195 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Argumentative Writing: Moving Beyond Teaching Structure to Engage Students in Critical Conversations\",\"authors\":\"Matt Seymour\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/cea.2021.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:The issue of teaching form over content in writing instruction is one that scholars have been discussing for years. Historically, secondary educators in the U.S. have tended to emphasize teaching writing structure and made the ideational aspects of writing secondary to issues of form. Over the past 20 years, scholars from multiple disciplines such as rhetoric, education, and literacy have argued against the teaching of preset and replicable structures in favor of a more contextualized approach to writing. Despite the push for content over form by many scholars and teacher educators, an emphasis on form remains prevalent at the secondary level, especially when it comes to the teaching of argumentative writing. Given the persistence of the teaching of structure at the secondary level, an approach students bring with them to the post-secondary classroom, scholarly conversations would do well to consider the systemic issues that incentivize secondary teachers to privilege structure and form in their teaching because research has consistently found an emphasis on teaching structure insufficiently promotes students' growth in writing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CEA CRITIC\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"195 - 202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CEA CRITIC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2021.0021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CEA CRITIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cea.2021.0021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:写作教学中的教学形式重于内容的问题是学者们多年来一直在讨论的问题。从历史上看,美国的中等教育工作者倾向于强调写作结构的教学,并将写作的概念方面置于形式问题的次要地位。在过去20年中,来自修辞、教育和识字等多个学科的学者反对教授预设和可复制的结构,而赞成采用更情境化的写作方法。尽管许多学者和教师教育工作者强调内容而非形式,但在中学阶段,对形式的重视仍然普遍存在,尤其是在议论文写作教学中。鉴于中等水平结构教学的持续性,这是学生进入中学后课堂的一种方法,学术对话最好考虑激励中学教师在教学中对结构和形式给予特权的系统性问题,因为研究一直发现,对教学结构的强调不能充分促进学生的写作成长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking Argumentative Writing: Moving Beyond Teaching Structure to Engage Students in Critical Conversations
Abstract:The issue of teaching form over content in writing instruction is one that scholars have been discussing for years. Historically, secondary educators in the U.S. have tended to emphasize teaching writing structure and made the ideational aspects of writing secondary to issues of form. Over the past 20 years, scholars from multiple disciplines such as rhetoric, education, and literacy have argued against the teaching of preset and replicable structures in favor of a more contextualized approach to writing. Despite the push for content over form by many scholars and teacher educators, an emphasis on form remains prevalent at the secondary level, especially when it comes to the teaching of argumentative writing. Given the persistence of the teaching of structure at the secondary level, an approach students bring with them to the post-secondary classroom, scholarly conversations would do well to consider the systemic issues that incentivize secondary teachers to privilege structure and form in their teaching because research has consistently found an emphasis on teaching structure insufficiently promotes students' growth in writing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CEA CRITIC
CEA CRITIC LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信