Zebroski, James Thomas. Thinking Through Theory: Vygotskian Perspectives on the Teaching of Writing. Portsmouth, HH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1994. Print. Summary:Zebroski does not believe that the is a truth, only approximations of truth. He wrote and spoke about communication and how it is created through students and teachers, as this book was much more classroom orientated and pedagogically focused. He sees language as mediating a gap between the speaker and listener (or the writer and speaker), acknowledging that the gap will never be closed entirely, but that language can (sometimes) help build connections that get one another closer to the intended meanings. This conception is what he means when he describes words failing. In the selection we read, he establishes some of the challenges faced when teaching both freshman composition and the teachers who teach freshman composition; he does add ample examples and ideas for how he has done this in the past. His work is clearly heavily influenced by Vygotsky and how that pertains to writing. Zebroski is also careful to clarify assumptions or misunderstandings or misreadings that others have had of Vygotsky (168). He is also clear that inner speaking does not equate to inner speech (189).Response:One question from the text in particular that I would like to explore here is the following one: “Concretely, do we teach writing as an art or as a since, or is the very asking of this question and the very splitting of the whole into such dualistic categories the problem itself?” (171) This question is one that has seemed to appear in various forms throughout our other readings this semester and my classical rhetoric class as we have read texts that address this very concern. It seems that trying to frame writing (or the teaching of writing) as either an art or science or possibly both, does little to help it. By both definitions writing can be expanded to include a great many of assumptions that people have about art and science, but it still confines it by excluding all other understandings beyond the categories. At times it may be rhetorically helpful to define it as one or the other, but Zebroski seems right in questioning the whole construct of these two categories. Perhaps why it is so difficult to define writing in one, the other, or both is because we recognize their limitations and know that writing is more than what the categories have to offer.Connections/Questions:Obviously, much of this text is influenced by Vygotsky, and it is clear that Zebroski has found a gap in scholarship which he intended to fill. For example, Zebroski outlines four ideas that he thinks are helpful for composition but which have not been considered by others (156). There are a couple of times that he references Bakhtin, though often without even citing Baktin’s name some of the ideas seem familiar, and as we’ve read about Vygotsky and Bakhtin influencing on another before, it is not surprising that Bakhtin appears here. He uses Bakhtin’s understanding of dialogue having a quarrelsome aspect to it that is not always explored in other discussions of dialogue. It is clear from his visit as well as his text that he thinks theory should not be reserved for academics or graduate students and that he is comfortable with lively discussion or conflicts in the classroom if it provokes them to think more critically. |
Quotations:“Teaching is less about passing on some ideas and practices that I value than about valuing and in that valuing, generating an energy that students sense, that pushes them to generate their own energies” (136). “Thus in Vygotskian theory, inner, “private” “self” is shown to be related to the most public aspects of community life and to be related to the most public aspects of community life and to that community’s sense of Self” (169). “Concretely, do we teach writing as an art or as a since, or is the very asking of this question and the very splitting of the whole into such dualistic categories the problem itself?” (171) |
