A divide exists between creative writing and literature in the humanities, and, while that divide has narrowed over time, there is still room for connection between the two disciplines. In higher education, most humanities courses consist of essay assignments that often involve literary analysis and research. Creative writing forms, on the other hand, are typically considered separate from academic writing and appear in creative writing courses almost exclusively. Thus, in literature and social studies courses, students must learn to master writing the “academic essay.” In terms of structure, the standard academic essay often contains an introduction with a thesis statement, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. However, the academic essay not only requires a traditional essay structure but also a specific language and tone—considered “academic” or “scholarly.” The student must therefore learn to fit their ideas and research into this mold of academic writing. While adapting to this writing style may come naturally for students whose first language is English, and even more so for students who have a privileged socioeconomic and educational background, some students may not find the academic essay to be an accessible form for their needs. Creative and innovative projects, however, can allow students to utilize alternative ways of speaking and thinking, which may in turn help them understand and engage with course content more deeply than they would through writing an academic essay. Thus, a student-centered learning model would benefit the postsecondary classroom especially when applied to academic writing assignments. Providing the opportunity to use innovative writing forms would make the class more accommodating to the diverse needs of students and help them to think more critically.
The Banking Concept of Education
The Purpose of Memorization in the Classroom
The teacher-led classroom, when not carefully balanced with student ownership, can lead to negative effects on student learning because this type of model reduces meaningful interactions between student and teacher. Brazilian scholar Paulo Freire’s 1968 work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, emphasizes the benefits of dialogical pedagogy, as he describes the issue of oppression particularly within the classroom. Freire criticizes what he calls the “banking concept” or “banking model” of education, in which teachers present “facts” and expect students to memorize and regurgitate the information. I agree with Freire in his opposition to the banking model, but it is important to first understand why this method of instruction has traditionally been used in the classroom.
Educators have often relied on the banking model because of the focus on memorization, which can be a useful indicator of whether students have absorbed information and are able to later recall it. This practice has its benefits, since students need to memorize key concepts before they can further understand and analyze them, as indicated in the learning objectives within Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Originally, this framework was titled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom with the help of Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl. The taxonomy was later revised by psychologists, theorists, and researchers to focus more on “action words”: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (Armstrong). My project centers especially on analysis and creation within this Revised Taxonomy. The issue with solely focusing on memorization of facts is that this prevents students from digging more deeply into concepts. Comparing rote learning to meaningful learning, educational psychologist Richard E. Mayer asserts, “[I]f you wish to expand your focus by finding ways to foster and assess meaningful learning, you need to emphasize those cognitive processes that go beyond remembering” (228). When Mayer says “cognitive processes,” he refers to the higher levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, in which students begin thinking more critically about key concepts and eventually applying them to real-world scenarios. College courses especially must emphasize the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy in order to promote meaningful learning for students.
While memorization has its benefits in the classroom, especially in a course where knowing key terms and definitions is necessary, a downside to the banking model is that it prevents dialogue between teacher and student. As Freire elaborates, “Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat” (72). With the banking model of education, teaching and learning become a superficial transaction rather than an active conversation, as Freire suggests. This type of education prevents students from engaging fully with course content and drawing their own conclusions on issues, because they only learn surface-level information. Rather than producing their own ideas and takeaways, students receive preexisting interpretations from the teacher. While the banking concept is less prominent in education now, oppressive practices still occur in higher education.
The Academic Essay Assignment
In college courses, the academic essay assignment, while it often does provide an opportunity for critical thinking, can be inaccessible for students whose voices are traditionally marginalized, not to mention students with diverse learning styles. College students speak a wide variety of dialects, defined as “the variet[ies] of language used by a group whose linguistic habit patterns both reflect and are determined by shared regional, social, or cultural perspectives” (“Students’ Right to their Own Language” 5). Furthermore, students use language registers influenced by race, class, family, educational background, and other cultural factors. Individuals can alter their register, and dialect, based on changes in environment, such as the shift from speaking colloquially to speaking academically. However, as contended in “Students’ Right to their Own Language,” created by members of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, dialect-switching can be more difficult for some individuals because “dialect is not separate from culture, but an intrinsic part of it” and “accepting a new dialect means accepting a new culture; rejecting one’s native dialect is to some extent a rejection of one’s culture” (8). By instructing students to use Standard American English (SAE)—the type of English utilized in the professional American world—in their essays, the academy essentially asks students to accept a new dialect and, thus, accept a new cultural identity over their own or at least learn to code-switch between cultures and social groups.
Some may argue that students need to learn SAE to communicate effectively, especially in professional and academic settings. While this argument is valid, it is important to remember the problem of equity in learning SAE, as native English speakers have an advantage over English Language Learners. Moreover, when teaching students to use “scholarly language” in their college essays, a lesson I myself have taught as a peer tutor at the CWU University Writing Center, we are instructing them to speak in a way historically considered as professional, intelligent, and grammatically correct. This implies that a person’s native dialect, which may be a form of English differing from SAE or another language altogether, is incorrect and inferior. The controversy on teaching SAE ties back to the banking concept of education, in that information about what it means to write academically is deposited into students’ minds with the expectation that they will memorize and put the information to use, which often entails switching to the dominant language in academia. On the topic of language registers, Professor and scholar Vershawn Ashanti Young poses a new term, code meshing, to replace code-switching: “Code meshing blend dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and the rhetorical styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech acts” (114). Thus, rather than switching between dialects, code meshing allows individuals to combine various ways of speaking, which is a beneficial practice because it challenges the idea that there is only one way to intelligently communicate. Using code-meshed language, Young articulates,
The narrow, prescriptive lens be messin writers and readers all the way up, cuz we all been taught to respect the dominant way to write, even if we dont, cant, or wont ever write that one way ourselves. That be hegemony. Internalized oppression. Linguistic self-hate. (112)
Young’s discussion highlights the tie between culture and language, conveying how enforcing a dominant language—standardized English—teaches individuals to learn and use one way of communicating in the academic and professional world and to leave native dialects and cultural identities at home. Yet Young’s ability to code mesh shows that bringing native dialects and registers into the classroom can actually broaden the academy’s reach, making it more inclusive. A reader who recognizes familiar patterns in this code-meshed article suddenly gains access and is able to transcend the barriers formerly in place against them. If this article had been in SAE, this potential student reader may not feel as welcomed, nor as valued, and the audience would have been narrowed.
The solution is not necessarily to dispose of the academic essay but to increase meaningful conversation about language in the classroom. Students would benefit from a better understanding of why scholarly language and format is emphasized in academic essays, a lesson that may even include the history of academic writing and SAE. Allowing students to combine dialects, especially when learning new information, would also address the issue of instructing students to replace their language with a new one. Educators can turn to Young’s article as an example of a text that code-meshes to make arguments and evaluate research, and they might consider allowing students to code-mesh as a way of expanding conversations on language. Most importantly, it is crucial that educators not suggest, even implicitly, that SAE is more correct or respectable over other dialects because this reinforces oppressive ideals.
Solutions to the Banking Concept
Freire’s Theory of Conscientizaҫáo
Before oppressive practices in education can be abolished, teachers and students must both be conscious of these practices and open to change. Freire argues that the solution to any oppressive system lies in conscientizaҫáo, a Portuguese term that translates to “conscientization,” which functions as a process by which oppressed people become critically aware of how institutions work to keep them disadvantaged and lower in the societal hierarchy (16). When the oppressed begin practicing conscientization, they can determine which parts of the system to challenge and can fight for themselves, rather than internalizing and, therefore, continuing their oppression. Freire’s theory of conscientization not only involves being conscious of systemic inequity, but also criticizing and taking action against the inequity; such a process should be practiced by both the oppressed and members of the oppressor class who claim to believe in justice. Applying this idea to education, teachers and students would need to adopt and open mind and become more flexible to new practices in the classroom.
Colleges would largely improve by implementing conscientization into their programs because their programs would become more accessible and equitable. Administrators, faculty, and staff who care about student-centered learning would need to take charge as what Freire would call “revolutionary leaders” and then “initiate the ‘cultural revolution’” (158). Although people in positions of power should not fight for the oppressed, as this suggests that the oppressed are not capable of advocating for themselves, they can still use their platforms and resources to fight with the oppressed. To begin such a cultural revolution, members of the oppressor class must first recognize their positions of power and privilege, acknowledging how the system of oppression has rewarded them in exchange for keeping certain groups of people in a disenfranchised position. In the case of academia, faculty may need to first realize which aspects of the college program or course are promoting oppressive ideals so that they can focus on those areas. Another crucial point of recognition is that, within the student population, some people are more marginalized than others based on identity and background, including but not limited to first-generation students and students with exceptionalities. Conscientization cannot be a “one-size fits all” method but must instead be personalized to each student, hence why student-centered learning is a useful classroom model. Any form of cultural action begins with listening, and, in this case, faculty and staff must make time to listen to students and their needs.
Critical Dialogue
Dialogue and collaboration play a key role in achieving critical consciousness, opposing the banking concept of education, and deepening students’ learning. Freire suggests, “‘Problem-posing’ education, responding to the essence of consciousness—intentionality—rejects communiqués and embodies communication” (79). In the previous quote, Freire’s emphasis on “intentionality” indicates that one must be purposeful in their actions in order to be considered conscious. The banking concept of education involves the stating of information—a “communiqué,” in Freire’s wording—which prevents any dialogue between teacher and student. Dialogue, put simply, involves the discussion of information, allowing students to offer their perspectives and challenge or build from each other’s ideas. That said, dialogue involves not only the discussion of course content but also the collaboration between teacher and student, which can be reiterated in student-focused assignments. Ira Shor, an educator and scholar heavily influenced by Freire, expands on the importance of critical dialogue in education: “Dialogue fits into a sequence of teaching-learning which in the Freirean mold begins with the teachers studying the students before she presumes to teach them” (9). In other words, the educator must understand the students—their identities, backgrounds, and interests—in order to integrate meaningful teaching and dialogue into their practices. On Freire’s teaching strategy in literacy programs, Shor describes that “Freire scaffolded literacy in this student-centered manner, using familiar subject matters engaged in unfamiliar ways” (9). This type of scaffolding can apply not only to literacy programs, but to any courses in which students are learning new concepts, including but not limited to, how to write an academic essay. By learning more about their students, professors can determine ways to incorporate topics relevant to students into course content and make new concepts more accessible and engaging for students. This process entails flexibility, though, since the professor may need to modify their original course plans in order to adjust to student interests and needs.
Student-Centered Learning
Student-centered learning serves as a solution to combatting oppressive practices in education and a method for promoting dialogue in the classroom. In the student-centered learning model, students become active rather than passive learners, as they receive opportunities to choose potential course topics and assignments, and frequently engage in discussions with peers (“Student-Centered Instruction”). The student-centered classroom includes minimal lectures from the professor and emphasizes collaborative activities and projects. Another key aspect of student-centered learning is that it involves “socially and culturally relevant coursework,” which allows students to apply course content to real-world situations beyond the classroom (Triana). The focus on real-world applications is especially important in student-centered learning because students have more incentive to learn the material and use it in the future. This also helps students find more purpose in their learning since their knowledge will serve as more than just a grade for them.
In higher education, some educators may feel concerned about reducing lectures and increasing student-led discussions since this may result in students not learning the content correctly. The student-led classroom, however, still requires the professor to help students understand key concepts and to facilitate discussion. Where the student-led classroom differs from the teacher-led classroom is in allowing students to ask questions, provide ideas, and exercise the freedom to steer the conversation in new directions, so long as the discussion remains centered on the reading or topic, of course. On the topic of hybrid education, Dr. Chris Friend, a professor and the director of Hybrid Pedagogy, states, “When we dictate what students should and should not learn, we dismiss the significance of discovery” (“Introduction to Hybrid Teaching”). Dr. Friend’s emphasis on discovery suggests the importance of students receiving the opportunity to question, discuss, and draw their own conclusions on topics. Students may not know where to begin in their discoveries and dialogues, though, so it is the teacher’s role to help them navigate these learning experiences. Moreover, while the professor possesses more knowledge and experience in their field of study, they must listen to student input on course content and remain open to potential modifications, always ensuring that student interest and engagement remain the priority in the student-centered classroom.
Student-Centered Assignments
At the college level, faculty can modify classes to be more student-centered by including students in the assignment-design process, thus opposing the oppressive banking model. Professors can create assignments with a guiding prompt and then allow students to choose the format they use to address the prompt. As a personal example, a professor of mine always assigns what they call a “genre project” in their class. For the genre project, students work with themes in the texts read in class, which acts as the overarching prompt, and they decide a genre in which to present on the purposes and larger significance of the textual themes. In course where the genre project was assigned, students have written poems, created board games, designed websites, and completed numerous other types of projects that allow them to engage in a way of thinking that best fits their learning style and interests. The student is then likely to experience intrinsic motivation which “occurs when individuals naturally and spontaneously perform behaviors as a result of genuine interest and enjoyment” (Yarborough). Intrinsic motivation drives a student to be more engaged in their learning than if a teacher is merely depositing information for the student to absorb. Assignments like the genre project are also effective because, rather than simply reciting information in a uniformed, formulaic presentation or essay, they encourage students to actually produce new ideas and creations. This targets the top level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, “Create,” giving students the opportunity to construct their own work rather than only analyzing someone else’s work (Armstrong). Student-centered assignments not only reject the banking concept of education but also allow for a more individualized and generative learning experience for students.
Creative and Innovative Writing Forms
Giving students more freedom with writing forms allows them to create their own work and also to remain true to their authentic voices and native dialects. Because writing the academic essay can require essentially learning a new language, students may find creative forms of writing to be less intimidating. Also, creative forms allow students to focus more on purpose and ideas, often referred to as “higher-order concerns” in writing centers, rather than prioritizing “lower-order concerns” like grammar and syntax. Author and former professor Barbara Christian was a proponent of creative writing as an alternative method of speaking for marginalized voices in academia, a perspective she developed after noticing a shift in the humanities from studying literature to producing theory as a means for career expansion and mastery of the subject. Christian observes,
Perhaps because those who have affected the takeover have the power … first of all to be published, and thereby to determine the ideas that are deemed valuable, some of our most daring and potentially radical critics (and by our I mean black, women, Third World) have been influenced, even co-opted into speaking a language and defining their discussion in terms alien to and opposed to our needs and orientation. At least so far, the creative writers I study have resisted this language. (68)
Here, Christian identifies an issue in academic writing: how the language and ideas of those in power are, not only accepted, but praised. In order to receive recognition, then, people of underrepresented identities and backgrounds must learn to adopt the language and engage in the discourse of those in power: historically, the White, middle to upper-class academic. This happens not only in more advanced levels of academia but also in undergraduate-level courses, as students of color, students of lower socioeconomic status, students whose native language is not English, and other marginalized students, respectively, are expected to write in the language of the “academic.” Creative writing reduces that pressure and gives students the space to focus on critical and innovative thinking, which should always be the priority in the classroom. In addition, creative writing can consist of numerous forms, thus giving students the space to find the format and language that best aligns with their identity and dialect.
Critics may contend that creative writing is not academic and, likewise, a source for critical thinking because of its experimental nature; yet creative writing can help students engage with course content and readings more deeply because they can write in a way that matches their thought process. For example, ekphrastic poems can allow students to portray their immediate, authentic responses to a text and provide multiple sensory stimuli as entry points, which can especially benefit students who experience synesthesia or anxiety. This type of exercise can aid students in analyzing texts beyond their surface-level. Multiple examples of ekphrastic writing appear in my portfolio of creative writing, which demonstrates how I have addressed assignment guidelines by using innovative methods of critical thinking. Rather than only writing about texts, I also embody literary devices and forms used by the authors I am studying in courses, offering me insight into how the author’s stylistic choices reflect the purpose of their writing and, sometimes, the author’s identity. In most courses where I completed creative work, professors assigned some type of critical introduction or statement about the project. In my portfolio, I include a précis for each individual project so that the reader can view my creative choices, critical-thinking process, and insight on the assignment development as a whole. I encourage professors, should they choose to assign projects allowing creative freedom, to have students write a précis detailing the decisions behind their work. The pairing of the précis and the creative project accesses higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, providing a meaningful, customizable learning experience for students. Moreover, the courses where I learned most effectively and met learning outcomes are the courses where creative and student-centered assignments appeared alongside the academic essay.
Exploding Pedagogy 