In “Writing as a Mode of Learning” Emig claims that “with writing, the audience is usually absent; with talking, the audience is usually present” (124) therefore writing allows for careful production of thought without inhibition. In comparison, Elbow would have a slightly modified viewpoint of whether writing can be receptive or function as a listening act. In “Closing My Eyes as I Speak” he works through the conflicting idea of considering the audience in writing and the need to write in isolation without consideration of the audience in order to make new meaning. Based on what he discusses in this article, I would argue that Elbow believes writing can function as a listening act, however this is not the best way for writing to exist as a way to make meaning. Instead, Elbow would say that we should write with our eyes (and ears) closed first, especially for more competent writers. The audience is present in the writing process, but by forcing the audience out of the picture, more enhanced learning will take place, because the voice in writing is free from inhibition. The important difference between Emig and Elbow, though, is that Elbow argues that there is a time and a place to allow the audience back into consideration. More specifically, the writer should [listen] to the needs of the audience after there has been copious amounts of exploratory writing, thus the learning process has already taken place and the most important experience of writing occurred within a private dimension.

I found the concept of “teaching” (of course he claims to not be teaching very often) entirely through conferences to be a very compelling concept. Would it be feasible in a large, public university such as FAU to teach ENC 1101 entirely through conferences? Simply for the sake of time – 22 students with 3 hours a week of classes – it doesn’t seem possible. In an ideal world, these time structures wouldn’t matter, but due to the concerns surrounding metrics that seem to run this university, I can’t imagine that this type of structure would ever be universally adopted at FAU.

That being said, I think that a sort of hybrid form of this process could be extremely useful. As a UCEW consultant, I find that most interactions are too fleeting to do a great deal of change in student writing, and it is only the students who return on a regular basis to the same consultant that improve as writers. When students develop a relationship with a consultant, it seems that they are able to make realizations about their own writing, because the “teaching” is directly applicable to the content of their own individual paper. On the other hand, as a GTA, I think there can be value to the traditional classroom structure. At a minimum, MLA, grammar, the “basics” of writing, and classroom discussions are things all students need to experience; therefore, why can’t they all experiences this at the same time in the same room?

Like I mentioned above, perhaps a hybrid of this conference system would be most beneficial for student writing. If we met as a class for one week, and then the next week met in conferences to discuss drafts, they could have the best of both worlds.  Murray paints a very pretty picture of his abilities, claiming that his students continue to do more and more of the teaching themselves. I wish I could talk to him, because I can’t fully understand what this means or how it can be possible. If his students teach themselves, and have only conference experiences, how do they learn the norms of the discipline? An easy example being MLA. Of course students have a handbook, but I don’t believe that they can simply pick something like this up and then magically understand everything about it. It takes time, much longer than a 25 minute conference that should focus on larger concerns. Finally, how does he make sure that students maintain an intrinistic motivation to learn and improve, when Murray provides such little guidance?

I find that Freire and Hairston’s concerns about teaching come down to the same general anxiety: in the power struggle of educating, how do we allow students to be in control of their own learning? I personally had an interesting introduction to Freire; I had to read and write a paper on his theories for a sophomore composition course. Although I found it interesting, the teacher of the course seemed to take Freire’s words seriously. He was incredibly hands off in the teaching of writing – almost to a fault. Other than this one class, my experiences of being taught writing have been much more of the “old paradigm.” Typical examples include the use of fill in the blank bubble outlines, formulaic styles of paper development, and overly critical grammar Nazis who mark everywhere on your paper with little explanation.

My concern as a new GTA becomes, then, how do I take these theoretical frameworks of shifting towards the new paradigms put forward by Freire and Hairston and put them into practical application? Hairston uses the phrase “untrained teaching assistant” (79) and teachers who feel “insecure and angry because they know they are teaching badly” (81). This describes me perfectly, but without external pressures to change this system, I don’t see how there can be a full shift away from the old paradigm. As a confused teaching assistant with little guidance in the practical application of teaching writing, am I not doomed to a) fail at my attempts to follow a paradigm that I don’t have experience learning from, and/or b) fall back on the old paradigm because it is the only one I know how to apply in the classroom, therefore pass these bad practices onto my students and the next generation of confused teachers?