Student Engagement with Writing: Two Sources

Source #1: Ira Shor in Conversation with Paolo Freire
Shor, Ira; Freire, Paolo. A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education. Bergin & Garvey Paperback. 1986.

Context: Shor and Freire’s conversations do not focus solely on writing, but rather address teaching as a whole in its potential to liberate individuals. Their dialogues address issues about types of students, ways of teaching, and global issues in teaching; in Chapter 5 specifically, though, they address “first-world” students and ask whether these students too need liberation. Shor is notable in composition studies, so in some ways takes Freire’s work and applies it towards the work we do specifically.

Summary (pages 124 – 137 only): The chapter addresses students in the “first world,” asking whether they, like “third world” students, need to be liberated. The authors’ implicit answer is “yes.” The excerpt I’m using discusses a few ways student alienation can manifest itself, including general passivity (a “Culture of Silence”), irritated aggression (a “Culture of Sabotage”), and development of low expectations towards school. Shor and Freire discuss differences between “reading the words” and “reading the world.” This speaks to the perceived or real divorce between the topics of schoolwork and the real stuff going on in the world, also described by Shor as “school-words versus reality.” This separation, too, has an effect on student engagement or passivity.

Evaluation: For my purposes, the selection is useful because it points out the clear consequence of taking relevance out of schoolwork: removed or disengaged students. It also provides another way for me to discuss the passivity that can grow out of unproductive labor – labor that’s meaningless to the individual, that takes them farther from their “essence,” or that becomes strictly a commodity of exchange (traded for money or for grades, in this case). I found one aspect of the text limiting: aggressive and “sabotaging” students were discussed mainly as a problem. I didn’t feel like the authors recognized all of the potential engagement that can be brought out of active anger or conflict – though they did attempt ways at dealing with the issue in the classroom. At any rate, I felt this was a missed opportunity.


Source #2: Sean Hawthorne on Barriers to Engagement with Writing

Hawthorne, Sean. “Students’ beliefs about barriers to engagement with writing in secondary school English: A focus group study.” Australian Journal of Language & Literacy. 31.1 (2008): 30 – 42.

Context: Hawthorne discusses students’ approach to writing not only in terms of the writing process, but by considering the literature on student “motivation.” He cites studies on motivation, and refers to students’ falling abilities in writing and increasing dislike of writing (often across Australia and New Zealand); he hopes to address these issues by discovering what aspects of writing make writing assignments engaging or not engaging.

Summary: Hawthorne’s study concerned secondary students divided into two general groups: the “engaged” writing students and the “reluctant” ones. In focus groups, the students discussed six potential reasons for disengagement; the dominant factor was a lack of interest or perceived (or real) relevance in the writing topic, and it was shared across groups. Students also reported the importance of “environmental” factors, including computer vs. paper, home vs. school environments, and, notably, the extent to which writing becomes public in a classroom. Overall, students preferred classrooms in which their writing could be shared with other students.

Evaluation: For my purposes, the selection is useful because it helps me narrow the theoretical perspective I’m coming from towards practical classroom decisions. The study reports specific changes in assignments and assignment contexts that can contribute to student engagement or alienation. For other 538 students, limitations of the piece might include its small sample size (28 students), the age of the students (10th grade), and the country of origin (Australia). I was also concerned that as the study used focus groups rather than surveys – a decision with many strengths, of course – student answers might be swayed or colored by the answers they’d already heard from their peers.