A Celebration-Last BLog

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?

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.

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.

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.