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.