a "traditional" essay? (1-26)

At this point, I am definitely “wallowing” in complexity, maybe even confusion. After reading the textbook, Searle’s article, and Freire’s article, I feel that I have even less of an idea about how I should proceed with teaching writing. The readings for this week seem to deal with the debate about whether or not one should be “traditional” in her teaching practices. Freire I would not classify as traditional because of his argument against the “banking concept” of education. While the composition textbook is not “traditional” in the banking sense, it does seem to present many of the ideas that I have already heard about reading, writing, summarizing, brainstorming, and note-taking. In some ways, I am having difficulty with the textbook partly because it has been so long since I have had to read a textbook; freshman or sophomore year of undergrad was probably the last time. While I recognize their usefulness in organizing and summarizing large amounts of information, I sometimes find them uninteresting. I am so used to reading texts such as novels and literature journal articles that to read textbook material seems somehow inadequate. Thus, when the textbook quotes Peter Elbow, I think about how I would rather be reading his book (although due to the ever-present constraints of time and other duties/interests, I don’t take the time to look up such sources). The problem is, however, this reflects my desires as a graduate student in English. That description won’t fit any of the students I will be teaching. Therefore, a textbook may be what they want/need, especially since one can only handle a limited number of novels or journal articles in a class due to their usual length and complexity and also due to the fact that this is supposed to be a composition class rather than a literature class (which is a continual source of difficulty for me because I learned to write through and about literature). But I have to also admit that even while I was reading the textbook, I realized how few of their suggestions that I follow as regards my reading or writing. Or, maybe I have just developed my own system that has its roots in what they outline, which is what my students ultimately need to do anyhow…
I also wanted to respond to the Freire essay specifically. I do agree with the “problem-posing” philosophy of education that he describes. However, I wonder that perhaps the state of education is not as dire as he makes it sound. He seems to describe all students as indoctrinated zombies who will never have an original thought because of the oppressive teachers. While I don’t doubt that the “banking-concept” of education does exist, I sometimes also wonder whether students create this style of learning of their own accord. I know there was a time in my education (and perhaps it still exists), when I would rather have a teacher give a lecture telling me what I needed to know, then let me take a multiple choice test. (It certainly sometimes seems easier than writing seminar papers!)
I think part of what underlies Freire’s idea of the “problem-posing” type of education is that the student has a necessary interest in the subject. It is so much easier to think/write/research when I am personally invested in a subject (hence the different feelings I had about my papers on Milton versus detective fiction). But again, the problem revolves around how to have all of my students interested in the papers they are writing. Maybe I should just be realistic and realize that it won’t happen. Even as a “good” student in high school and undergrad, my true level of interest in many of my papers was probably not that high.
Perhaps, rather, I should teach students how to have fun with their writing. When Freire was talking about “consciousness as consciousness of consciousness,” I was immediately reminded of the discussion my brother and I had over Thanksgiving break about “metacognition.” True, he was not taking the term seriously, as he tends to do with so much about education, and yet he was unconsciously taking it very seriously because of his creative word play. So, perhaps if I appreciate Freire, while also remembering not to take everything so seriously, I can also teach my students about how to play with their writing in a way that will make it seem less like work, and perhaps indirectly, allow them to improve.

Questions to self:
What are the rules of writing we are expected to teach?
How can you play yet still teach the traditional academic essay?
What is the ideology behind “critical thinking”?
If you can stimulate thought through writing, how else do my students stimulate thinking: music, art, math?