Nidhi's "Philosophy of Teaching Composition"

On September 27 I turned in an extended analysis assignment for this class. My group analyzed plagiarism in the form of a podcast. My classmates turned in written assignments. For this blog post we were instructed to read and analyze one of our classmates’s extended analysis. I chose Nidhi Kaith’s “Philosophy of Teaching Composition”.

Nidhi discusses in her extended analyses the idea that truth is not something that can be taught but can be discovered. The imagery of discovering is powerful and speaks to independence in the student that cannot be achieved if the teacher is dictating what the student can learn. It also creates the image of a partnership. The teacher is the student’s partner and guide without controlling what the student learns but allowing them to learn for themselves.

Nidhi goes on to detail her three core beliefs in the teaching of writing, the first of which is “the power of reading”. She cites Stephen Krashen’s “The Power of Reading” who claims that the real problem Americans face in their literary failings “is not that Americans cannot read and write, “…they just don’t read and write very well.” (ix).” Nidhi goes on to explain Krashen’s assessment that “The reason why students cannot write well is that they do not read” and links this lack of reading negatively impacts ones cognitive ability, a sentiment that I agree with completely. She likens reading to exercising the brain and explains that “Good readers are also at an advantage as reading automatically strengthens their grammar, vocabulary, and spelling.” As a result of an extensive vocabulary and proper grammar, the student gains credibility, another fact that is proven true time and time again when I visit supposedly reputable web sites and find grammatical and spelling mistakes. Instantly I find myself doubting the authenticity of whatever piece of new I am reading and well as that websites credibility as a whole.

The second core belief of her teaching philosophy Nidhi discusses is “the power of language” by connecting the power of reading to its effects on a student’s ability to write. She believes that “reading is by far the best way of learning how language works, of how language doesn’t work, of developing one’s command over the language, and of learning how to use language in one’s writing to produce meaning.” It through reading, she says, that perhaps she can induce the “itch of literature” which “nothing can cure…but the scratching of a pen” as described by Samuel Lover. Through this itch she hopes to combine literature and composition. An example she gives of accomplishing this is by having her students read journalistic works and analyzing how language works in different media platforms. This, she says, is a practice that students not only need in order to be successful in this world but one the value of which she hopes to impress upon her students so they can continue it for years to come.

Of course, the power of language doesn’t stop with reading critically composition. Nidhi knows that the act o writing is an equally important aspect. She notes that students often see writing as a chore, something that, because it seems like such a basic skill, when they don’t succeed right away they become discouraged and come to resent writing. To counter this she advocates the removal of grading as a way to judge a student’s progress. This is a sentiment I support whole heartedly. This is the first year I am actively grading students’ written responses and I don’t like it. We assign students these grades and while we do provide commentary for the student why they earned that grade there isn’t an opportunity for the student to learn from their mistakes and resubmit the assignment. As Nidhi says, “Honest feedback of the teacher should be the medium to learn how to write.” As I stated in my earlier blog post “Learning to Write Well is a Process” the act of writing is not something that has just one answer and takes practice, constant revision but because students are handed these grades and not given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes they quickly become discouraged. What’s more, it actively stops them from exploring all they can do with writing. Nidhi says it perfectly: “To force students to do a specific kind of writing with good grades as their ultimate aim, defeats the purpose of writing.” This drive for good grades completely misses the point of writing: to express oneself.

Nidhi’s third and last core belief is “the recognition of the presence of multiculturalism in our classrooms.” I find this an interesting concept to include as a core belief, especially her statement that “a good teacher ought to recognize the presence of a globalized classroom.” She goes on to explain this as the necessity that a teacher recognize that each student is an individual with experiences and cultural backgrounds unique to each of them. I like this idea, especially when she connected it to her earlier argument that allowing students to express themselves through their writing, thus giving them an outlet to showcase their unique experiences and culture. She also makes the point that international students, for whom English is a second or even third language, often need more help than those for whom English is their first and sometimes only language. I couldn’t agree more and I had firsthand experience with this last week when I participated in the 1301 tutoring session on Thursday. As usual, we were instructed to only spend roughly 15-20 minutes with each student so that every student would have a chance to work with a tutor however, the first two students I helped were non-native English speakers (one of them had only learned English last year! I was thoroughly impressed). Because of their lack of familiarity with English (not to say they weren’t fluent, only they didn’t have the many, many years of practice of the other students) I spend more than just 20 minutes working with them so make sure they understood the assignment.

Nidhi proposes having students work in small groups comprised of both international and American students as a way to give international students a way to learn from their peers who have been speaking English all their lives. While I agree with her that “students feel more comfortable learning new things around their peers” there is still the small problem that American students are learning the subject too and as a result might not be the best sources for international students who are learning how to write. The same could be and has been said about peer reviews. Of course, the interactions between American and international students in these small groups provides the opportunity for the two sets to learn from each other in other ways. Douglas McGray argues for the inclusion of multiculturalism in the American school system in his article “Lost in America”. Nihdi’s suggested multicultural small groups provides a means for students to learn about a foreign culture from their peers, promoting empathy for those who live and experience the world in such a different way than their own. Perhaps an assignment the small groups can be set is the writing of a paper about the different cultures present in that group.

Throughout her “Philosophy of Teaching Composition” Nidhi clearly outlines her core beliefs and provides explanations why she gives them so much importance. She also provides examples of how she would incorporate these values into her lessons. I believe her suggest regarding the grading system has more merit than what we can see. The same can be said for multicultural small groups though I, personally, would caution from using those small groups as a way to teach too often. Overall, I really like Nidhi’s philosophy in the teaching of composition.