Final Reading

I found Canagarajah's article to be really interesting. Prior to reading it, I had come to the conclusion that no one theory was the "right" one, but that all of the theories were/are "right" in part. I had through that what was needed was a combination (or as Canagaraja claims a synthesis). I realize now that this really isn't necessary. There really can't be a one-size-fits-all, culminating method. On page 28, Canagarajah claims "The field represents a supermarket of ideas and practices that we can choose from at will for our purposes." He adds that this is a more cynical look at the field, but I'd disagree. I think this makes the field better in that it provides options. If teachers jobs involve teaching the content in an understandable way, isn't it better to have more choices and strategies to pull from? When one isn't working, you can simply try the next. Especially considering the fact that each group of students is different, one strategy may not always work to teach a lesson. Teachers will need to consider their students when designing lessons and choosing strategies from the "supermarket" of the field.

On a separate note, I found myself annoyed at the inclusion of Allwright's research on pages 19 and 20. Canagarajah claims he "pointed out how teachers still control the curriculum of student-centered learning, reluctant to compromise their own teaching agendas" (19). What I think he is forgetting is the district and school curricula. I don't think that it's solely the teachers agenda that's the problem. Teachers have so much they must cover in order to keep their jobs. I really don't think it's fair to put all the blame on teachers for a lack of true student-centered learning.