Normally, I'd wait till Wednesday at 12:30 or so to blog. But because this is the last one, I am commemorating the occasion with an early blog.
Moran-No, Chris, not moron...moran. Or as Bugs Bunny would say...what a maroon! But I digress. Technology these days is not just the computer...it's cell phones, blackberries, iPods...all with access to the Internet. All of those are ironically banned from schools. As much as writing teachers must keep up with the changing technologies, schools must re-visit their rules and allow for some access to the "new" technologies where appropriate. Our district used to be on the cutting edge of technology and up on all the new curricular advancements. I'm not sure what happened, but not only are they way behind (no cell phones anywhere at any time, including after school events) but they have now rigged schools computers in a way that allows access only to specific sites, typically sites like NetTrekker and Culturegrams, thereby eliminating me from using wikispaces and 21 classes (blogging site)...the district has a subscription with both, but I cannot access it. So, I sent a simple email to the powers that be..."Who in God's name limited computer access to the point that I can't allow my remediation groups to blog or set up wikis?" We now have people trying to undo a, well, moronic decision.
I agree (204) that technology is not so much meant to improve writing...but for my students who for some reason are so focused on how badly they hand-write and not WHAT they are writing...computers afford them more time to edit what matters and not focus on their handwriting. it gives them more time to think...and it takes less time to type (for most) than to write...so their thoughts don't get too lost. Technology also allows teacher and students quicker, easier access to many more ideas to steal and to use those ideas as a springboard. Technology is something all students should be allowed access to...it's just the way things are done, whether it's for higher education or for the students who is simply meant to be a stock person in the back of a department store...technology is used everywhere.
I should give the bibliography portion of this essay to our computer teachers...sometimes i wonder what exactly goes on in those classrooms. The students would glean some really interesting info, if presented in that way, about the history of computers in schools. The tech teachers could also sneak a writing lesson, unbeknownst to the students, into the teaching of technology, even if it is as simple as showing them different options (208) about auto-correcting, undoing all caps without re-typing, etc...to using HTML (213) and setting up web pages (which many will have if they own any type of business) these are fun to know but will also be useful to many of the students in the future. I know my reading students always get a kick out of my stories about AOL when it was the only on-line community...and also charged 4.95 an hour for usage...well, my bill was once over $400...and they just are in awe. When you can relate things kids take for granted to their current life and how much easier it is now...they love the stories, but they are also being educated in tech history. They just looked shocked when i talk about typewriter correction fluid...and how that was MY tech class in HS...and let's not even get started on no email, or text, or no such thing as Internet access when I was their age...and busy signals...(NO call waiting? are you kidding me?)
I was surprised to see a chapter that addressed how different races and the genders utilize technology. Not shocked-surprised, but I never thought about this in terms of researching it. Interesting. I do agree that the computer used to be a "boys toy" as its referred to in the essay. The Hawisher book that is referred to goes as far as deeming women victims online (in one sentence)...not quite sure what exactly that's referring to tho...general use and online dating? If so, then I can see that. How many news articles report men somehow victimizing young girls who get caught up and women who are at an age where they should really know better with all we know. Anyway, the author then discusses briefly Hawishers documentation of how some women (few) persist in the area of online academia. She does not elaborate, and the book was written over 10 years ago, so obviously times have changed in that area.
What hasn't changed since this was written is the idea that although schools have done a great job trying to level the playing field in terms of technology access, some kids are not able to have access at home, or are able to get to the public library, or the only access they have at school is doing a required research project, therein excluding them from knowing the basics of email or getting to know a basic word processing program. It really also depends on their future needs and their social discourse when it comes to uses and needs for technology.(220)
Anson-Again, written 10 years ago when the entire world was afraid the year 2000 would blow up all computers or infect them with viruses, or eliminate all financial transactions that were in computers...I woke up jan 1 2000, checked my computer and various on-line accounts and thought...good Lord...another hoax about the semi-end of the world.
The one thing that will never go over well with me (807) is the whole idea of virtual classrooms or distance learning, and online "courses". There just really is no subsitition...no matter how crystal clear the TV picture of the professor comes in...for in-person discussions that allow for more clarity, actual conversation that doesn't limit you to speaking one at a time, and actual physical faces. When it comes to teaching writing and integrating technology...is it about the writing or does it seems we are more focused on intorducing more and more technological concepts that are not about writing at all...??? Again, culture...schools are doing sort of well keeping up with all the new technology...but not all students need it now or will in the future. Are schools looking at their kids' needs or are they more concerned with how impressive it looks to have rooms full of whiteboards, laptops, and other new technology? How is it being put to use? Whose agenda is it? Is the agenda meant for the students? how many more new innovations before it's just too much to deal with? Case in point...I was required to watch a teacher give a small seminar during an in-service. She is a math teacher. She has an iBoard. She has iClickers. She has a lot of gadgets for this iBoard. Which by the way, I don't have one in the room I use, but I can't understand why some teachers are crying over not having one when the in-Focus does the same thing. But whatever. Anyway...great little workshop. In the end, this great new invention of iClickers...I know how to use them. They're fun. They have purpose. Very easy and obviously should be integrated into a math-based classroom or very concepts-based class. Just not for reading. So now, I wasted my time learning how to use something I'll never have any use for. Ever. So, same goes for students and who they are and where they come from. Some will just have no use for all this new technology. It's one thing to use it b/c it's required for, say, the math class my colleague teaches. But are we getting away from teaching them the basics b/c we forget that not all of them have the basic access at home? I guess the question is...how effective is all this new technological "stuff" on student learning? Is the use of it for the teachers and admin, or is it for the students?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Next to last blog
Mutnick-See, I was excited to show that I was going to make a connection to Shaughnessy with this reading. I saw the title and thought…sounds very Mina-ish. Well, first page mentioned her. Stole my connection. Anyway…didn’t we have the conversation last week about universities either trying to get rid of basic writing programs altogether, to universities not only keeping them, but requiring that the professors have specific certifications? What a conundrum…the expectation is that by the time a student reaches the university level of learning, they should really know how to write. But they don’t. So what it’s the motivation behind eliminating the program that they have to know they need? Nobody has to expect to write like a professional, but when kids enter college not knowing how to write an essay, or basic report, or a research paper, and what’s more, the conventions are just awful…I don’t see how universities can possibly get rid of basic writing programs. It is a way to give students confidence. A well-conducted course includes theory, reading, various types of writing, rhetoric…all of it. (184) Not just grammar and sentence structure. 0n 188, and the discussion on the process of writing and not the end—the editing—I wish more teachers would realize that when kids are made to think about the end before they’ve even begun, the process is completely lost. It’s simply about giving the teacher what they want, and not about the students writing and re-writing and being allowed to make mistakes. It’s about teaching them to write well by way of error. I don’t, however, agree with the idea on page 196 that basic writing courses send the message that students in the class are not expected to write well. I have to then ask…what type of message is the university or college sending to its students who view it that way? As far as secondary schools…what happened to differentiation? The needs of students? I really liked the idea of a Writer’s Studio…where the name itself connotes creating…not “fixing” mistakes. (197) This type of environment not only can enrich those who write well, but also give confidence who really are there just to learn the basics.
Shaughnessy-I picked this one and Sommers b/c they were short. I have no shame in admitting that. What’s more, I am looking forward to the last blog. I am blogged out. Love the program Julie, truly I do, but my brain hurts.
Perfect. This was something I was thinking about…the idea that basic writing is considered remedial…college level and you can’t write. Or even the centers available in some middle and high schools…the premise is…send your dumb, non-focused, bad-spelling, bad-handwriting to the center. The teacher wants to get them help. But is it the student who needs help? Who needs the help? Teachers need to be well-trained and reflect on their practices…students come in with heads to fill with knowledge. It is not our job to assume they’ll never get it when really all they need is someone who knows what they’re doing to guide them down the right path. So, therein lies the whole idea behind Shaughnessy’s developmental scale for teachers. I can’t help but thing this was meant partially sarcastic…she says essentially…well, you all have these scales that dictate where a student is, so, here’s yours. Does Guarding the Tower mean…keep the low ones out? Seems that way. We all know someone like that. I just had a teacher in here, who, for the third year, asks me for strategies to teach her “low learners” b/c “I just never had to deal with kids like this before.” What, kids who aren’t gifted? Kids who need to be guided? What does that mean? Who is the problem there? I don’t think it’s the students… She needs to create a connection that says…it’s ok to mess up in here…not…wow…you kids are impossible to teach! At that point she would be “converting the natives.” Talking…discussing….safe place to make a mistake. It makes not only the student accountable, but it makes the teacher accountable…these kid will keep wanting you to guide…so you have to know the student and what’s going on. There has to be accountability…on both parts….but shaughnessy says that in this stage (313) the teacher still does not relate what he/she is teaching to what students know…there is no exploration of knowledge. Even at the exploration stage, students can learn a lot from each other, and the teacher can teach accordingly about composition. I really relate to 314, where she discusses that what seems to simple to the teacher is completely foggy to students…isn’t that what teaching is? The assumption that the students don’t know anything. That’s what makes kids shut down…when they sense a teacher thinking…geez! Don’t you get it yet? And so, the stage of Diving In…the realization that it isn’t about the students’ struggles and why you can’t get them to get it. It’s about “becoming a student…becoming their own students in order to perceive difficulties and excellence.” What this means to me is that students who struggle also have great areas of non-struggle…and it’s the teachers job to be both the teacher and student…the learn and help others learn.
Sommers-funny once again that just had this conversation with the above mentioned teacher. The idea of revision…how is it done? She wasn’t quite sure how to allow the kids to revise b/c SHE doesn’t do I that way…SHE edits on the computer. Not quite sure how that should be relevant to the way she teaches…and frankly I was afraid to ask. And she had them on some pretty stringent time constraints. So my question was...do you want them to show what they actually know by giving them time to formulate thoughts and re-write, or do you just want something specific in that you are getting essentially the same two or three version of your idea of the answer? Anyway…it was a great discussion that I am hoping she took ideas from…
Wow…page 44…one of those things that is so obviously true but never articulate…speech is impossible to revise…words on paper are not. The idea being…the linear model makes revision in writing no more than revision in words…just an afterthought… it appears cut and pasted or added in. There’s no flow in thought. P 45 discusses the idea that writing is shaped by language that can no longer be speech…I’m thinking the is the stopping kids and adults do to think…then write…then stop to think…then write.
Looks to me like the main difference between student writers and experienced writers is this: experienced writers know what to say…they just revise how it is written, they shape it (50). Students writers are not confident in their thoughts, so there is the complete omissions and scratch outs—essentially saying…no no no…that’s not at all what I want here…they are trying to make meaning and also express that meaning to the reader. That takes a lot of practice. Students need, like I mentioned to the teacher I was talking about, a safe environment to practice and make mistakes and discover their own writing voice—and not just in style, but using their own “internalized sense of good writing” (53)…I think kids have a lot going on in their heads when they are asked to write. But their inner critic bashes that good sense before they can even get it on paper.
Shaughnessy-I picked this one and Sommers b/c they were short. I have no shame in admitting that. What’s more, I am looking forward to the last blog. I am blogged out. Love the program Julie, truly I do, but my brain hurts.
Perfect. This was something I was thinking about…the idea that basic writing is considered remedial…college level and you can’t write. Or even the centers available in some middle and high schools…the premise is…send your dumb, non-focused, bad-spelling, bad-handwriting to the center. The teacher wants to get them help. But is it the student who needs help? Who needs the help? Teachers need to be well-trained and reflect on their practices…students come in with heads to fill with knowledge. It is not our job to assume they’ll never get it when really all they need is someone who knows what they’re doing to guide them down the right path. So, therein lies the whole idea behind Shaughnessy’s developmental scale for teachers. I can’t help but thing this was meant partially sarcastic…she says essentially…well, you all have these scales that dictate where a student is, so, here’s yours. Does Guarding the Tower mean…keep the low ones out? Seems that way. We all know someone like that. I just had a teacher in here, who, for the third year, asks me for strategies to teach her “low learners” b/c “I just never had to deal with kids like this before.” What, kids who aren’t gifted? Kids who need to be guided? What does that mean? Who is the problem there? I don’t think it’s the students… She needs to create a connection that says…it’s ok to mess up in here…not…wow…you kids are impossible to teach! At that point she would be “converting the natives.” Talking…discussing….safe place to make a mistake. It makes not only the student accountable, but it makes the teacher accountable…these kid will keep wanting you to guide…so you have to know the student and what’s going on. There has to be accountability…on both parts….but shaughnessy says that in this stage (313) the teacher still does not relate what he/she is teaching to what students know…there is no exploration of knowledge. Even at the exploration stage, students can learn a lot from each other, and the teacher can teach accordingly about composition. I really relate to 314, where she discusses that what seems to simple to the teacher is completely foggy to students…isn’t that what teaching is? The assumption that the students don’t know anything. That’s what makes kids shut down…when they sense a teacher thinking…geez! Don’t you get it yet? And so, the stage of Diving In…the realization that it isn’t about the students’ struggles and why you can’t get them to get it. It’s about “becoming a student…becoming their own students in order to perceive difficulties and excellence.” What this means to me is that students who struggle also have great areas of non-struggle…and it’s the teachers job to be both the teacher and student…the learn and help others learn.
Sommers-funny once again that just had this conversation with the above mentioned teacher. The idea of revision…how is it done? She wasn’t quite sure how to allow the kids to revise b/c SHE doesn’t do I that way…SHE edits on the computer. Not quite sure how that should be relevant to the way she teaches…and frankly I was afraid to ask. And she had them on some pretty stringent time constraints. So my question was...do you want them to show what they actually know by giving them time to formulate thoughts and re-write, or do you just want something specific in that you are getting essentially the same two or three version of your idea of the answer? Anyway…it was a great discussion that I am hoping she took ideas from…
Wow…page 44…one of those things that is so obviously true but never articulate…speech is impossible to revise…words on paper are not. The idea being…the linear model makes revision in writing no more than revision in words…just an afterthought… it appears cut and pasted or added in. There’s no flow in thought. P 45 discusses the idea that writing is shaped by language that can no longer be speech…I’m thinking the is the stopping kids and adults do to think…then write…then stop to think…then write.
Looks to me like the main difference between student writers and experienced writers is this: experienced writers know what to say…they just revise how it is written, they shape it (50). Students writers are not confident in their thoughts, so there is the complete omissions and scratch outs—essentially saying…no no no…that’s not at all what I want here…they are trying to make meaning and also express that meaning to the reader. That takes a lot of practice. Students need, like I mentioned to the teacher I was talking about, a safe environment to practice and make mistakes and discover their own writing voice—and not just in style, but using their own “internalized sense of good writing” (53)…I think kids have a lot going on in their heads when they are asked to write. But their inner critic bashes that good sense before they can even get it on paper.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Blog 5
George: Easy reading. The idea, again, of writing and discourse comes up right at the beginning…92…inequality in education is produced by differences in culture. So it then becomes the job of the teacher to even out those differences. But how? It’s not just about the teacher attempting to undo this inequality…it’s about the learner absorbing it and carrying it on long after they’ve learned how to do it. But therein lies the issue. I remember reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and initially, not quite getting why these people didn’t just allow themselves to be free…in the way of literacy as well as politically and economically. If they just knew, I thought. Do they know? Do they choose to believe what they’re told because it’s easier? Sort of, but it was more than that, and this was the shocking part for me…they did know. On some low level…they knew. But they were the caged docile animal. They wanted so badly to get out, somebody actually came to do that, opened the cage…but once it was opened…well, now what? This oppression was so normal, well, what would they do without it? Fear of intellectual freedom…it’s almost easier to just be told what to think when you haven’t been taught to do it yourself. And that’s where we/they fall into that whole idea of the intellectually “elite” dictating what others know because the “others” just don’t know any better and don’t have the intellectual freedom and opportunity to do so. Those who have access to knowledge are the ones that dominate (95). But there can’t just be the elite and the oppressed….isn’t there middle ground? There can’t just be the “Ivory Tower” schools (96) and the community colleges that Shor paints as a trap…going just to essentially say you went to college but coming out with nothing more than vocational training along with however many thousands of students chose the same community college path. This is where teachers comes in…to even the playing field between those that are destined for Ivy League success and those who just don’t have access to it, but still have a high level of smart. In order to do that, teaching must be student-centered, grounded in Dewey, and consider all students’ home lives and know that they all can’t be taught the same way and produce the same results. It sound easy on paper…but it isn’t. At least for teachers who teach well. It’s about teaching student’s how to think, to have their own opinions, and be able to back them…it’s non-traditional teaching.
Here we go…this is that other opinion that I totally get…page 102….what keeps people from knowing? I understand that some countries are run in a way that the top few dictate what the masses know. But in the US….as a teacher…I can see kids just not interested and they don’t understand the gravity of the opportunity they’ve been given…and the detriment they can’t see in not taking hold of it. The of course there’s the students who take hold of it and end up succeeding, but feeling like they really had no choice, and they end up in a job they don’t exactly enjoy and never really wanted in the first place…but it pays the bills. So who is oppressed? The homeless people who, at times, are people who just decided to take “control” and do away with bills and people and gossip and make their own way, albeit the streets of a large city? And sometimes they are educated…they just made a choice that felt right. To them, that’s freedom. Who’s oppressed? Ok…I have to read the next one…
Haefner: Ah. Hate to admit this, but I like that it’s short. Ok, so democratic…social equality. A personal essay an example of social equality and therefore should be a part of higher education and be part of writing instruction. The personal essay is a vehicle for self-expression…given the way many kids write today, I don’t know that their essays belong in higher education…some do, many don’t. Huge connection to a Friere and Macedo book regarding discourse and education...it’s not about what’s written, but what is behind the words…where the writer comes from. The influence. Page 511 discusses the fact that the reader of an essay is often more important than the writer. Readers reading based on their discourse and writers writing based on theirs.
So many different opinions…Haefner saying he doesn’t want to make rules for teaching this type of writing, then you have Ede/Lunsford laying down the law. I think the idea is that it belongs in the classroom, but there are variables that need to be considered…obviously a one-size approach will not work…with all the talk of discourse, that’s a given. So how is it integrated into a writing course? (516) Haefner suggests redefining cultural text and de-isolating it by giving students the opportunity to read early essays …including movies, books, art, newspapers…all awesome ideas. Not just letting them see works of theorists, but also the culture behind it all. The biggest idea in this essay was the fact that Haefner suggests (518) that students themselves define the “personal essay.” Let them talk, discuss, ponder, question…I think the idea of writing discourse implies teaching others to accept differences and be accepted (519) and what better way than to allow students to discuss those very differences in an open forum that ultimately leads to the writing of a personal essay.
Berthoff: Good God last one for the day. Ok, so there comes a point where thinking about thinking is just, well, redundant…bordering on boring. I used to know people who sat around and talked about this stuff and holy crap I wanted to put nails in my rib cage. Anyway…
I do completely agree with the quote on page 330…evidenced that students leave schools with virtually no concept of how to think logically and abstractly. I see it all the time with reading…kids just can not think implicitly…it’s clear that unless something is in a text or passage, they don’t know how to read between the lines to lead to logical conclusions not expressively written. That’s a problem. They don’t make meaning. If they can’t make meaning in reading, they can’t make meaning in writing. The very idea that writing is thought on paper means that if there is no real, logical, meaning-making thought, there cannot be real, logical, meaning-making writing. There is no thought interpretation. Page 332-333 discusses how the lack of abstract thinking leads to writing that is redundant, laced with faulty parallels, no links from one idea to another. It’s writing comprehension. Kids need to think about thinking (boring and rib-slashing as it may be) in order to continue to discover language. Interpretation is essential in order to “make sense of the world” (337). So really, it the human job to “know.” Kids should want to know and discover. “Teachers will assure that language is continually exercised to establish likes and differents by sorting, gathering…students learn to define.” (342) Language is writing, discussing, listening, perspective, thought, ideas…it’s, like he says…how meanings make meanings.
Here we go…this is that other opinion that I totally get…page 102….what keeps people from knowing? I understand that some countries are run in a way that the top few dictate what the masses know. But in the US….as a teacher…I can see kids just not interested and they don’t understand the gravity of the opportunity they’ve been given…and the detriment they can’t see in not taking hold of it. The of course there’s the students who take hold of it and end up succeeding, but feeling like they really had no choice, and they end up in a job they don’t exactly enjoy and never really wanted in the first place…but it pays the bills. So who is oppressed? The homeless people who, at times, are people who just decided to take “control” and do away with bills and people and gossip and make their own way, albeit the streets of a large city? And sometimes they are educated…they just made a choice that felt right. To them, that’s freedom. Who’s oppressed? Ok…I have to read the next one…
Haefner: Ah. Hate to admit this, but I like that it’s short. Ok, so democratic…social equality. A personal essay an example of social equality and therefore should be a part of higher education and be part of writing instruction. The personal essay is a vehicle for self-expression…given the way many kids write today, I don’t know that their essays belong in higher education…some do, many don’t. Huge connection to a Friere and Macedo book regarding discourse and education...it’s not about what’s written, but what is behind the words…where the writer comes from. The influence. Page 511 discusses the fact that the reader of an essay is often more important than the writer. Readers reading based on their discourse and writers writing based on theirs.
So many different opinions…Haefner saying he doesn’t want to make rules for teaching this type of writing, then you have Ede/Lunsford laying down the law. I think the idea is that it belongs in the classroom, but there are variables that need to be considered…obviously a one-size approach will not work…with all the talk of discourse, that’s a given. So how is it integrated into a writing course? (516) Haefner suggests redefining cultural text and de-isolating it by giving students the opportunity to read early essays …including movies, books, art, newspapers…all awesome ideas. Not just letting them see works of theorists, but also the culture behind it all. The biggest idea in this essay was the fact that Haefner suggests (518) that students themselves define the “personal essay.” Let them talk, discuss, ponder, question…I think the idea of writing discourse implies teaching others to accept differences and be accepted (519) and what better way than to allow students to discuss those very differences in an open forum that ultimately leads to the writing of a personal essay.
Berthoff: Good God last one for the day. Ok, so there comes a point where thinking about thinking is just, well, redundant…bordering on boring. I used to know people who sat around and talked about this stuff and holy crap I wanted to put nails in my rib cage. Anyway…
I do completely agree with the quote on page 330…evidenced that students leave schools with virtually no concept of how to think logically and abstractly. I see it all the time with reading…kids just can not think implicitly…it’s clear that unless something is in a text or passage, they don’t know how to read between the lines to lead to logical conclusions not expressively written. That’s a problem. They don’t make meaning. If they can’t make meaning in reading, they can’t make meaning in writing. The very idea that writing is thought on paper means that if there is no real, logical, meaning-making thought, there cannot be real, logical, meaning-making writing. There is no thought interpretation. Page 332-333 discusses how the lack of abstract thinking leads to writing that is redundant, laced with faulty parallels, no links from one idea to another. It’s writing comprehension. Kids need to think about thinking (boring and rib-slashing as it may be) in order to continue to discover language. Interpretation is essential in order to “make sense of the world” (337). So really, it the human job to “know.” Kids should want to know and discover. “Teachers will assure that language is continually exercised to establish likes and differents by sorting, gathering…students learn to define.” (342) Language is writing, discussing, listening, perspective, thought, ideas…it’s, like he says…how meanings make meanings.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Blog....4? I lost track already
Rose: I loved Lives on the Boundary, so I knew I’d be into whatever Rose had to say in this essay. 548-549 refers to the idea that writing courses are offered outside the realm of academic classes and how pointless it is. I can’t emphasize how much I agree. How can we teach kids to write when they are not using the very curriculum they are writing for? Isn’t that the point? This obviously includes what Rose is talking about…college freshman courses. They can’t write, they are placed in a writing class, yet they are sent to other classes that require writing, and they are right back to where they started…not knowing how to write to explain or write research for the classes they are taking. They are learning “writing” in one class…the broad brush strokes anyway…but how can they apply it to other areas if they don’t practice in that specific area?
And he’s also right that there’s talk talk talk about writing in the natural environment( 550)—by administrators anyway---but either teachers don’t know how to do that or it just sounds good, but really all some teachers want is the product to be graded. Being able to quantify the writing. If we really want to teach kids to write, there almost has to be a time when there is no grade…just keep writing for different areas of the curriculum until it clicks. Those classes need to be offered in middle or high school…not just as a college remedial course. Grades? How about just pass/fail. This way, there is the feeling that they need to put effort in to pass…no effort is failure, effort and the consistent trying allows them to pass. The focus on error is what completely shifts what the student thinks they are there to accomplish. Do they want efficiency or do they want writing? (554) They can have both…but it’s a process admin wants done all at the same time, and it just can’t happen that way. That’s why kids’ writing is a mess. And to think that, at one time, this type of thing was considered a disability that was labeled by a medical professional is crazy.
Didn’t we do a literacy definition paper with Julie? I know I still have it. Literacy does not just mean reading. It’s so much more. (560) it’s social, cultural, technical, academic, it’s reading and writing…there is no one definition. That’s obvious when countries like Brazil consider the fact that an individual can write his or her name “literate”. If we see kids that are “illiterate”, we remediate, like Rose says. I agree with his idea that that (565) we don’t “remediate”, but instead take what they know and fill that basket even more. It’s not that they are lacking, it’s that they just don’t know yet.
Bizzell: Definitely influenced by Thought and Language by Vygotsky. I read a lot of these articles and feel like I’ve seen it before…over and over. Now it’s just Bizzell picking it apart and deciding what specialists feel to be relevant in the field and subsequently to the students. I like her ideas…the inner directed diagram and how it can be used with the outer-directed. Page 395: “We can know nothing but what he have words for, if knowledge is what language makes of experience.” This was on the heels of her discussion about “translating: and putting ideas into language. Again, I feel redundant. I like the way she writes, but I’ve seen this stuff before. The one thing I especially connected with was the idea that composition research is provisional (406). I feel like there’s this circular logic I get stuck in where I say…you can examine and research any group...and do it well…but can we really “see” inner thought even when the individuals involved in the experiment express as much as they can? No finding is absolute. The questions must continue to be asked. I just think writing is either innate or learned. Some kids have it, some need to be guided and learn to write by writing. For those who have it, they can be enriched and help others try to capture their words on paper.
G & T Ok Chris…I think that’s you …the ClaytonsZoo…I am a much better reader of the likes of Rose, Fletcher, Graves….but yes, this guy escaped me. I do have some thoughts tho…politics and composition pedagogy cannot be a forced match. Bad blind date. Nothing in common. He started out fine…but I then had a hard time figuring out what exactly he was trying to say. He posed lot of questions at the beginning…and I had a hard time finding where he tried to clarify those and get an answer. I think he had a direction by mentioning Reagan, etc…but lost it. Why he trying to show metaphor between the politics of writing and the politics of…America? Or how America got politically involved in education and composition? Even his examples of cultural studies…how did they relate to composition? Am I missing a big piece here? This seems largely to be about political writing…oh wait…is that the point? Writing politically. I think that’s it. Mixed in with lots of social studies lessons, like on page 75 and the references to state coercion. I don’t get that one. Political theory writing? Is that what this is? But then I read about the connection to classroom studies, and here again, it’s about classroom pedagogy, textbook usage, and cultural studies. I don’t see the writing connection.
And he’s also right that there’s talk talk talk about writing in the natural environment( 550)—by administrators anyway---but either teachers don’t know how to do that or it just sounds good, but really all some teachers want is the product to be graded. Being able to quantify the writing. If we really want to teach kids to write, there almost has to be a time when there is no grade…just keep writing for different areas of the curriculum until it clicks. Those classes need to be offered in middle or high school…not just as a college remedial course. Grades? How about just pass/fail. This way, there is the feeling that they need to put effort in to pass…no effort is failure, effort and the consistent trying allows them to pass. The focus on error is what completely shifts what the student thinks they are there to accomplish. Do they want efficiency or do they want writing? (554) They can have both…but it’s a process admin wants done all at the same time, and it just can’t happen that way. That’s why kids’ writing is a mess. And to think that, at one time, this type of thing was considered a disability that was labeled by a medical professional is crazy.
Didn’t we do a literacy definition paper with Julie? I know I still have it. Literacy does not just mean reading. It’s so much more. (560) it’s social, cultural, technical, academic, it’s reading and writing…there is no one definition. That’s obvious when countries like Brazil consider the fact that an individual can write his or her name “literate”. If we see kids that are “illiterate”, we remediate, like Rose says. I agree with his idea that that (565) we don’t “remediate”, but instead take what they know and fill that basket even more. It’s not that they are lacking, it’s that they just don’t know yet.
Bizzell: Definitely influenced by Thought and Language by Vygotsky. I read a lot of these articles and feel like I’ve seen it before…over and over. Now it’s just Bizzell picking it apart and deciding what specialists feel to be relevant in the field and subsequently to the students. I like her ideas…the inner directed diagram and how it can be used with the outer-directed. Page 395: “We can know nothing but what he have words for, if knowledge is what language makes of experience.” This was on the heels of her discussion about “translating: and putting ideas into language. Again, I feel redundant. I like the way she writes, but I’ve seen this stuff before. The one thing I especially connected with was the idea that composition research is provisional (406). I feel like there’s this circular logic I get stuck in where I say…you can examine and research any group...and do it well…but can we really “see” inner thought even when the individuals involved in the experiment express as much as they can? No finding is absolute. The questions must continue to be asked. I just think writing is either innate or learned. Some kids have it, some need to be guided and learn to write by writing. For those who have it, they can be enriched and help others try to capture their words on paper.
G & T Ok Chris…I think that’s you …the ClaytonsZoo…I am a much better reader of the likes of Rose, Fletcher, Graves….but yes, this guy escaped me. I do have some thoughts tho…politics and composition pedagogy cannot be a forced match. Bad blind date. Nothing in common. He started out fine…but I then had a hard time figuring out what exactly he was trying to say. He posed lot of questions at the beginning…and I had a hard time finding where he tried to clarify those and get an answer. I think he had a direction by mentioning Reagan, etc…but lost it. Why he trying to show metaphor between the politics of writing and the politics of…America? Or how America got politically involved in education and composition? Even his examples of cultural studies…how did they relate to composition? Am I missing a big piece here? This seems largely to be about political writing…oh wait…is that the point? Writing politically. I think that’s it. Mixed in with lots of social studies lessons, like on page 75 and the references to state coercion. I don’t get that one. Political theory writing? Is that what this is? But then I read about the connection to classroom studies, and here again, it’s about classroom pedagogy, textbook usage, and cultural studies. I don’t see the writing connection.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Another blog--it's long
Emig—we discussed last week how writing is deliberate. Vygotsky discussed this extensively in Thought and Language—writing is an expansion of inner speech. Students would probably have at least a little bit of an easier time writing if they knew they were “allowed” to write what they are thinking. So often a student will ask me, after a discussion about their writing topic, “So, should I write that?” I always say, “Well, what else did you plan on writing?” But it still never fails…they’ll come back up and what they have on paper is not even close to what they said to me. I’ll tell them, “No…what you actually said to me is much better than this…it’s more clear…it’s more detailed.” Their response is always the same: “Oh. So…am I allowed to write that?” Yes!!!! Writing is a learning process very weaved in with reading, talking, listening, and speaking. It’s about being aware of your emotions and what you are feeling, your opinions…and that in and of itself is a learning process for kids. Using the language to explore that.
Berlin-I have to be honest. I had to re-read many, many, many times. Very wordy. I had a hard time getting thru a paragraph without looking at least one word up. I am going to have to talk this one out in this blog. Page 719—“Ideology enters all features of our language experiences.” That’s deep. That’s not conscious thought…this is sitting down with people who talk about why they think how they think and where it comes from. Philosophy. In terms of writing anyway. I don’t get it. Who does that? Is he actually talking writing or …what…he says something about “what remains outside of the field of phenominonological experience.” What the hell does that mean? Is he saying that the ideology behind writing class is based on our beliefs of what structure and “normal” is? Page 721-I think, possibly, that what he is talking about is getting into the brain processes behind how kids write and the steps they take in their heads—why they compose the way they do…??? “Composing behavior” ???? Gosh I am having a hard time with this one. This is all very scientific. Ok, 722…all this to talk about the mental process in writing? To pick apart the cognitive structures? How can that be done? I think we had this discussion last week. Is the idea here (723) to access the mind of a good writer? What is it that makes them self-aware? How do they guide themselves? But, I hate to say it…just like with kids in school who just will never do well…don’t we just have kids who will never learn to put their ideas on paper because well, maybe there just isn’t much thought going on? By the way, “reitification” on page 733 is not in the dictionary. At least the one on my computer. I’ve about had it with this article. I’m not dumb, but this sure makes me feel like it. Either the concepts in here are way over my head, or he is saying that writing is a discourse that caries with it everything the writers carries emotionally….the unchangeable social system the writer is in, the economic system the writer is in…am I at least on the right track??
Burnham-I really should have read this before Berlin. In one fell swoop he explains the point of Berlin’s theory that all pedagogy is ideological. Maybe I was so caught up in the wordiness of Berlins article that that simple translation escaped me. But it did. The whole idea, and again here is this inter-woven connection among al the readings…that the writer is the center and their understanding of writing is directly related to how they think, where they come from, what they believe, and their own ways of seeing the world. It is the teachers job to have a theoretical base from which they teach and use various resources to help writers develop. It is not about the grammar-in the beginning or even in the middle-it’s about helping the writer make meaning of the language in their head by putting it on paper.. Page 23 discusses peer writing groups. I have seen good things come from this idea. I use it in my LA class, and, when given the right tools, students rally do use it to their advantage and gain from it by testing their potential audience. This whole idea of expressivism and its grounding in the relations between language, meaning-making, and self-development (page 25) …there’s a lot of thinking going on with the writer. They are both participant and spectator (26) They are reader and writer. What I keep thinking when I read all this is that…all these processes go on in a writer’s head, but they don’t know it. Just the simple act of re-reading what they’ve written can send a writer into a tailspin, and they have no idea that the reason is most likely because they suddenly became their own audience…but they would never be able to articulate that. I guess the whole idea is to make the writer conscious of those very thought processes and self-awareness.
Elbow- Looking forward to this one already and I’ve only read the first paragraph. I LOVE the idea of “ink-shedding.” It’s a new word to use with the kids…and serves a great purpose. I can use it as the “topic” portion of the Six Traits model or for free-writing…the part where the students say they have “nothing” to write about when they have an assignment.
And “figuring out what we mean”…boy so true…I can’t tell you how often I’ll have a conversation with a student regarding some topic of a writing assignment, I’ll ask them to sit and think about our conversation and write the details. They come back up with half the details missing…and they were the best part of the conversation. Then, just like in the article, they’ll say…OH! Well, that wasn’t what I really meant. ??? They articulate it so well, but then it all gets lost in the translation between head and hand. What happens?
Wow…I am using what’s on page 17…it’s not what you say but how you say it. I actually just came out of a meeting where that was the pinnacle of a problem. Just because you say it nice doesn’t mean it was a nice thing to say. That said…words mean everything. Speaking or writing…they hold a lot in their hands.
I don’t usually like to break down articles like this, but this one merits it. So many good ideas. Anyway…intonation…getting that meaning out. That includes reading with emotion and feeling. It’s all part of the comprehension process…and that includes when someone is reading what you’ve written. If you’ve written it flatly, then that’s how it’s going to be read. It’s not something that’s easy to teach students. Even if they full well how to use punctuation correctly, they don’t know how to read it…I’ve heard students read a sentence that clearly warrants even a little mustering of excitement, but they read it completely flat. Maybe they are embarrassed. But this sort of thing I’m thinking inhibits them as writers. They read flatly. They write flatly. How are they supposed to get a reader as excited about their written narrative or be influenced by their persuasive piece if it’s all so...well…flat! Just like that episode on Seinfeld where Elaine gets insulted that her new guy writes a message that her friend had a baby. He wrote “Friend had a baby” She was incredulous that he didn’t have any exclamation points…and she proceeded to yell at him and draw exclamation points in the air for every sentence…and her major complaint was, “How can you NOT put an exclamation point on a memo that says my FRIEND had a BABY!?!?!?!” This whole thing ended their relationship. And rightly so. If he writes flatly, I’m sure everything else he does is just mediocre, too. ☺
Berlin-I have to be honest. I had to re-read many, many, many times. Very wordy. I had a hard time getting thru a paragraph without looking at least one word up. I am going to have to talk this one out in this blog. Page 719—“Ideology enters all features of our language experiences.” That’s deep. That’s not conscious thought…this is sitting down with people who talk about why they think how they think and where it comes from. Philosophy. In terms of writing anyway. I don’t get it. Who does that? Is he actually talking writing or …what…he says something about “what remains outside of the field of phenominonological experience.” What the hell does that mean? Is he saying that the ideology behind writing class is based on our beliefs of what structure and “normal” is? Page 721-I think, possibly, that what he is talking about is getting into the brain processes behind how kids write and the steps they take in their heads—why they compose the way they do…??? “Composing behavior” ???? Gosh I am having a hard time with this one. This is all very scientific. Ok, 722…all this to talk about the mental process in writing? To pick apart the cognitive structures? How can that be done? I think we had this discussion last week. Is the idea here (723) to access the mind of a good writer? What is it that makes them self-aware? How do they guide themselves? But, I hate to say it…just like with kids in school who just will never do well…don’t we just have kids who will never learn to put their ideas on paper because well, maybe there just isn’t much thought going on? By the way, “reitification” on page 733 is not in the dictionary. At least the one on my computer. I’ve about had it with this article. I’m not dumb, but this sure makes me feel like it. Either the concepts in here are way over my head, or he is saying that writing is a discourse that caries with it everything the writers carries emotionally….the unchangeable social system the writer is in, the economic system the writer is in…am I at least on the right track??
Burnham-I really should have read this before Berlin. In one fell swoop he explains the point of Berlin’s theory that all pedagogy is ideological. Maybe I was so caught up in the wordiness of Berlins article that that simple translation escaped me. But it did. The whole idea, and again here is this inter-woven connection among al the readings…that the writer is the center and their understanding of writing is directly related to how they think, where they come from, what they believe, and their own ways of seeing the world. It is the teachers job to have a theoretical base from which they teach and use various resources to help writers develop. It is not about the grammar-in the beginning or even in the middle-it’s about helping the writer make meaning of the language in their head by putting it on paper.. Page 23 discusses peer writing groups. I have seen good things come from this idea. I use it in my LA class, and, when given the right tools, students rally do use it to their advantage and gain from it by testing their potential audience. This whole idea of expressivism and its grounding in the relations between language, meaning-making, and self-development (page 25) …there’s a lot of thinking going on with the writer. They are both participant and spectator (26) They are reader and writer. What I keep thinking when I read all this is that…all these processes go on in a writer’s head, but they don’t know it. Just the simple act of re-reading what they’ve written can send a writer into a tailspin, and they have no idea that the reason is most likely because they suddenly became their own audience…but they would never be able to articulate that. I guess the whole idea is to make the writer conscious of those very thought processes and self-awareness.
Elbow- Looking forward to this one already and I’ve only read the first paragraph. I LOVE the idea of “ink-shedding.” It’s a new word to use with the kids…and serves a great purpose. I can use it as the “topic” portion of the Six Traits model or for free-writing…the part where the students say they have “nothing” to write about when they have an assignment.
And “figuring out what we mean”…boy so true…I can’t tell you how often I’ll have a conversation with a student regarding some topic of a writing assignment, I’ll ask them to sit and think about our conversation and write the details. They come back up with half the details missing…and they were the best part of the conversation. Then, just like in the article, they’ll say…OH! Well, that wasn’t what I really meant. ??? They articulate it so well, but then it all gets lost in the translation between head and hand. What happens?
Wow…I am using what’s on page 17…it’s not what you say but how you say it. I actually just came out of a meeting where that was the pinnacle of a problem. Just because you say it nice doesn’t mean it was a nice thing to say. That said…words mean everything. Speaking or writing…they hold a lot in their hands.
I don’t usually like to break down articles like this, but this one merits it. So many good ideas. Anyway…intonation…getting that meaning out. That includes reading with emotion and feeling. It’s all part of the comprehension process…and that includes when someone is reading what you’ve written. If you’ve written it flatly, then that’s how it’s going to be read. It’s not something that’s easy to teach students. Even if they full well how to use punctuation correctly, they don’t know how to read it…I’ve heard students read a sentence that clearly warrants even a little mustering of excitement, but they read it completely flat. Maybe they are embarrassed. But this sort of thing I’m thinking inhibits them as writers. They read flatly. They write flatly. How are they supposed to get a reader as excited about their written narrative or be influenced by their persuasive piece if it’s all so...well…flat! Just like that episode on Seinfeld where Elaine gets insulted that her new guy writes a message that her friend had a baby. He wrote “Friend had a baby” She was incredulous that he didn’t have any exclamation points…and she proceeded to yell at him and draw exclamation points in the air for every sentence…and her major complaint was, “How can you NOT put an exclamation point on a memo that says my FRIEND had a BABY!?!?!?!” This whole thing ended their relationship. And rightly so. If he writes flatly, I’m sure everything else he does is just mediocre, too. ☺
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Blog 2
I did an author study on James Britton for Julie either last semester or last fall. I had never heard of him and in the end, was glad I chose him. I wondered how it was I had never heard of him at that point in my educational career, but perhaps I would not have appreciated his contributions quite as much had I learned about him prior to entering the writing certification program. It means more at this point. As for this article, he searches for some grounding in commonalities in literature, more specifically in poetry. And it’s at this point that I feel he goes so back and forth between theorists, that I can’t quite tell what the hell he is agreeing with, or why he thinks everyone needs to agree on what constitutes poetry. (152-154) What I am gathering as I read the remainder of the article is that he tried to find theory that supported his preference and belief for the more informal, narrative, “gossip” type of writing…experience-laden writing. Expressive writing. Writing that is not learned. Writing that is written from the heart. Writing that speaks what the minds eye saw, without “formality”. And I like that. There’s nothing more contrived than, well, contrived writing. You can tell when you read it. It sounds fake. Voiceless. Just like in longer writing, when you can put yourself into a poet’s writing—his or her experience—they’ve done their job as a writer/poet.
Oh here we go. Grammar. You know, the one thing I find with grammar is that once the concept is taught it is best retained by allowing kids to see it--and their mistakes--in their own writing. Constant light bulbs going off in their heads. But grammar is like a double-edged sword when it comes to writing. On one hand, it really needs to be correct in order for a reader to truly get what the writer wants them to get. But you don’t want to stop the creative process by saying…OH….no comma? Kids will shut down if they’ve come to you with what they think is a great piece and you’re only concern is that there’s no apostrophe in “you’re”.
There’s a teacher where I work that teaches it in isolation and makes a point of telling the kids that’s she’s traditional and boring and this is how she teaches it. I can’t for the life of me understand how she enjoys her job. If she doesn’t enjoy her job, how can the kids enjoy their own job of learning? Of course, research supports neither my way or her way (206-207) In fact, formal instruction didn’t even improve writing. But this is where I have to ask how grammar improves writing. Isn’t it style and voice that make writing worth reading? Sure, using the English language correctly makes for easier reading, but does it make for better reading? I had a kid in class whose hilarious poem began “My X, My Box” and it went on to describe his Xbox like a first love, how it called to him, grey and smooth, the voice calling from a distant room. I laughed until I couldn’t even talk to anyone. I think he was missing a comma or two in it. …but is this what Hardwell refers to as stylistic writing?(225) Enhances awareness of language and that “verbal clay” he talks about? Not everybody would have liked this kids poem…they would have thought the quality was lacking. I say it is experience in writing, no matter how grammatically incorrect. That has to be worth something. I gave him a 60/60.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Blog 1
When I think of rhetoric, I think of a guy I dated when I was in my very early 20’s. He was annoying because he was always looking to show how much he knew. He was pompous. He steered conversations toward a topic—usually political or religious-- that he read a lot about and tried to engage everyone around him in this sort of argument about why he was right. Right or wrong, he was boring, too philosophical, opinionated, and it wasn’t long before I told him I think this thing had run its course. So, now that I am in my late 30’s, I have long developed a new appreciation for rhetoric. It’s mostly from having completed grad school and being in Julie’s classes and seeing that smart definitely did not have to—and should not--equal pompousness. It’s also because I see that rhetoric is not supposed to be arguing or staunch opinion being forcibly pushed into a person’s brain. More importantly, it’s very much about the respect and appreciation for other’s opinions, even if you are on the complete opposite end of it. I wish my mother would realize this. Neither was persuasive or effective in their rhetoric.
That said, the Bedford article gave a very interesting timeline of the emergence of the writing curriculum, and the connection between rhetoric, expression, and its place in the teaching of writing. It’s much like fashion…comes full circle…lots of changes only to come back to what worked in the first place. Sometimes things change just for the sake of change, which is natural, but sometimes just changing the nuances of something can create big changes. Overhauls aren’t always necessary.
Changing subjects and in reference to the Kinneavy article…I remember discourse being an integral part of my first master’s course. Understanding readers and writers was not just about whether or not they did what you told them to do. It is the responsibility of the educator to consider students’ discourse. I realized that when a student writes, it is very much cultural. It is environmental, whether it be work, friend groups, family groups, or school. Page 130 talks about some scientific comparison. That threw me off. As I read, I see that there is a level of reference to writing as a “science”. Anyway, what I did like was (pages 130-133) the idea that writers and what they have to offer cannot be classified into groups. It’s emotional, it questions, it informs and persuades, it expresses, it’s scientific; it uses the same language in many different ways.
And lastly, Berlin’s piece. The parts of the whole. That’s a central idea in education. How you get to the outcome that you desire. He initially repeated the writer-reality-audience-language thing to the point that what he was trying to say got lost in the words. Speaking of words, I’m not ashamed to admit I had no idea what ineluctably meant. (256) Anyway, I was contented to read that most teachers are sort of stuck on the mechanics of writing. It gives my goal at my job major purpose and literature to back what I see all the time. While mechanics are important, there is that whole element of…whatever it is they are supposed to be writing about…that is missing when kids are forced to focus on the how instead of the why. They do not learn to…as Julie talked about last week…get the speech in their head onto paper, and worry about conventions later. And therein lies the connection of composition back to rhetoric. (260) “Rhetoric is meant to adapt the discourse to its hearers…when the individual is freed from the biases of language…the senses provide the mental faculties with a clear and distinct image of the world.” That almost sounds like psychology.
That said, the Bedford article gave a very interesting timeline of the emergence of the writing curriculum, and the connection between rhetoric, expression, and its place in the teaching of writing. It’s much like fashion…comes full circle…lots of changes only to come back to what worked in the first place. Sometimes things change just for the sake of change, which is natural, but sometimes just changing the nuances of something can create big changes. Overhauls aren’t always necessary.
Changing subjects and in reference to the Kinneavy article…I remember discourse being an integral part of my first master’s course. Understanding readers and writers was not just about whether or not they did what you told them to do. It is the responsibility of the educator to consider students’ discourse. I realized that when a student writes, it is very much cultural. It is environmental, whether it be work, friend groups, family groups, or school. Page 130 talks about some scientific comparison. That threw me off. As I read, I see that there is a level of reference to writing as a “science”. Anyway, what I did like was (pages 130-133) the idea that writers and what they have to offer cannot be classified into groups. It’s emotional, it questions, it informs and persuades, it expresses, it’s scientific; it uses the same language in many different ways.
And lastly, Berlin’s piece. The parts of the whole. That’s a central idea in education. How you get to the outcome that you desire. He initially repeated the writer-reality-audience-language thing to the point that what he was trying to say got lost in the words. Speaking of words, I’m not ashamed to admit I had no idea what ineluctably meant. (256) Anyway, I was contented to read that most teachers are sort of stuck on the mechanics of writing. It gives my goal at my job major purpose and literature to back what I see all the time. While mechanics are important, there is that whole element of…whatever it is they are supposed to be writing about…that is missing when kids are forced to focus on the how instead of the why. They do not learn to…as Julie talked about last week…get the speech in their head onto paper, and worry about conventions later. And therein lies the connection of composition back to rhetoric. (260) “Rhetoric is meant to adapt the discourse to its hearers…when the individual is freed from the biases of language…the senses provide the mental faculties with a clear and distinct image of the world.” That almost sounds like psychology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)