I must concur with Tim McGee and Patricia Ericsson that the Grammar Checker is the devil. I cannot stand the 'handy-dandy' grammar checker (although, I cannot say the same about spell checker). I am the traditional teacher who does take precious instructional time to teach proper grammar practices and skills. I do this for two reasons: 1) our students must take a state ACT assessment which, through their performance on the test, determines and shows the world what kind of education our students are receiving, and 2) they need to know the best way to organize and write what they are thinking. The kids hate me for it, but by the end of the year, they know most of the rules that matter (punctuation, subject/verb agreement, confusing adjectives, verb forms, and sentence structure). My belief is that if you understand how something works, then you are that much more independent and self-reliant; you do not need to depend on anyone or anything to tell you if you are right or wrong.
There is no definite answer in writing. Math and the sciences usually have the black and white answers; English is covered in grey. Concerning grammar in my classroom, I always tell my students that 99% of the time the rule will apply; but there will be that 1% to contradict the rule. I teach them to find the best answer, not necessarily the correct answer. My job is to create independent thinkers, readers, and writers. They need to make choices and stand by their choice. No computer program can do that for them.
This all applies to "The Politics of the Program" in the sense that the students have a choice to use the grammar checker when composing their papers on the computer with the understanding that there are flaws in the artificial intelligence program. I actually take the time to have my students play with the program using grammar in a very unconventional way. They type phrases and clauses that may be grammatically acceptable, but the computer says it is wrong;and they type phrases and clauses that are completely incorrect, and the computer ignores them. This is the first step of the learning independence process (there's that process word again). Once they learn to rely on their own instincts, then they can focus more on what they are saying instead of writing; the grammatical distractions magically disappear.
MS Word is a corporation that is worth billions and continues to grow; it is a business and is going to advertise and appeal to an audience who wants instant gratification. That is where teachers are going to find the battle with students - learning vs. instant gratification. I understand that technology is inevitable in our classrooms (five computers per room), and I plan to embrace that technology. I will know the technology and use the technology, but I will also continue to teach students that it is not reliable; what they learn, know, and understand is reliable. McGee and Ericsson seem to be saying the same thing.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Process, Post-Process, Pre-Process, What Process?
Writing is, much like anything else, definitely a process; however, processes can change over time. I was a product of the 1980's paradigm shift into the five paragraph essay. Organization was much more important than content and that has been the belief for many years. Traditional process writing focused more on grammar and conventions and penmanship. But that changed when technology changed and the focus turned to organizaiton. I see a shift now into expressivism; express what you are thinking in a clear and concise manner and remember to support what you say. Be creative (the multi-genre era). Really, this has all been a process throughout time. I think of writing as cooking. You can follow a recipe (a prescribed process) and pretty much garantee a perfect dish, or you could put a little bit of this and a little bit of that and hope it turns out delicious. Either way, once you eat the dish, you realize what you may want to change next time. It doesn't matter the process a writer follows, as long as they are satisfied with the product.
It seems to me that the whole point of this article by Matsuda is that writing is a process. Whether it is a process or post-process, it is a process nonetheless. The idea that our language causes such an uproar with words like pedagogy and theory and paradigm is amazing. Isn't that a process in itself? Discovering the best way to say something and to describe it? The way we use language is amazing. The denotation of post is after - so logically we should consider the definition of post-process to mean after the process; that is what Matsuda states toward the end of the article. However, the connotation of post-process in this article refers to the practices we explore as educators of writing since the introduction of the formal writing process. We have learned so many different processes for learning and teaching writing that it is now time to develop a process that best fits individual writers. I think that is the post-process Matsuda is addressing. One process is not the right process, but the culmination of many processes might be the best process.
I understand what Matsuda is saying about the L2 students and their writing. The focus for those students has been oration and writing has taken a back seat. The idea being that once you master speaking the language, your writing will be that much better. I think writing, reading, and speaking go hand-in-hand-in-hand, no matter the language. The more you read, the better you will write; and the more you write, the better you will speak (theoretically). Combining all processes for writing will only benefit the writer; the choices are available and one may work for now, but tomorrow may be a different process.
It seems to me that the whole point of this article by Matsuda is that writing is a process. Whether it is a process or post-process, it is a process nonetheless. The idea that our language causes such an uproar with words like pedagogy and theory and paradigm is amazing. Isn't that a process in itself? Discovering the best way to say something and to describe it? The way we use language is amazing. The denotation of post is after - so logically we should consider the definition of post-process to mean after the process; that is what Matsuda states toward the end of the article. However, the connotation of post-process in this article refers to the practices we explore as educators of writing since the introduction of the formal writing process. We have learned so many different processes for learning and teaching writing that it is now time to develop a process that best fits individual writers. I think that is the post-process Matsuda is addressing. One process is not the right process, but the culmination of many processes might be the best process.
I understand what Matsuda is saying about the L2 students and their writing. The focus for those students has been oration and writing has taken a back seat. The idea being that once you master speaking the language, your writing will be that much better. I think writing, reading, and speaking go hand-in-hand-in-hand, no matter the language. The more you read, the better you will write; and the more you write, the better you will speak (theoretically). Combining all processes for writing will only benefit the writer; the choices are available and one may work for now, but tomorrow may be a different process.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
My Teaching Theory - Week Two
So I will be honest, I thought the Why Comp/Theory post was our philosophy post. But after viewing everyone's posts, I was wrong. So here we go...
My teaching philosophy has definitely changed since I began a teaching program, completed student teaching, began real teaching, and continue teaching. However, the foundation of my philosophy has never changed. I teach because I want to help young adults realize their full potential in life. I love high schoolers (not freshmen so much). They think they know everything, yet they know nothing; and when you are able to blow their mind, it is amazing! However, I do believe that the students can blow my mind as well. Education is a field where both teacher and student learn from each other. That is the only way a teacher can grow and advance academically, intellectually, and professionally. I have learned so much from my students over the past ten years. They have taught me patience, empathy, tolerance, love, sarcasm, and how to text message using their symbols and abbreviations.
I teach them content, no doubt about that. But in order for them to grasp the content, they must feel safe. My entire philosophy of teaching and education is structured around respect. Students must respect their teacher, it's expected; however, the teacher must return that respect. Once respect is established, understood, and earned in the learning environment, then trust is gained. When we trust each other, growth is possible and so is learning.
I also believe that education and teaching are living, breathing entities. I can teach literature, grammar and composition all day long; but in order to be effective, I need to bring society and culture into the classroom. I need to be able to relate to my students, the wide range of students from different socioeconomic classes, ethnicities, genders, races, religions, etc. I don't only teach Language Arts, I teach kids. And a lot of times high school teachers seem to forget that because they are so wrapped up in their content. Teaching is all about what the student needs, not what the teacher wants.
My teaching philosophy has definitely changed since I began a teaching program, completed student teaching, began real teaching, and continue teaching. However, the foundation of my philosophy has never changed. I teach because I want to help young adults realize their full potential in life. I love high schoolers (not freshmen so much). They think they know everything, yet they know nothing; and when you are able to blow their mind, it is amazing! However, I do believe that the students can blow my mind as well. Education is a field where both teacher and student learn from each other. That is the only way a teacher can grow and advance academically, intellectually, and professionally. I have learned so much from my students over the past ten years. They have taught me patience, empathy, tolerance, love, sarcasm, and how to text message using their symbols and abbreviations.
I teach them content, no doubt about that. But in order for them to grasp the content, they must feel safe. My entire philosophy of teaching and education is structured around respect. Students must respect their teacher, it's expected; however, the teacher must return that respect. Once respect is established, understood, and earned in the learning environment, then trust is gained. When we trust each other, growth is possible and so is learning.
I also believe that education and teaching are living, breathing entities. I can teach literature, grammar and composition all day long; but in order to be effective, I need to bring society and culture into the classroom. I need to be able to relate to my students, the wide range of students from different socioeconomic classes, ethnicities, genders, races, religions, etc. I don't only teach Language Arts, I teach kids. And a lot of times high school teachers seem to forget that because they are so wrapped up in their content. Teaching is all about what the student needs, not what the teacher wants.
Monday, January 26, 2009
History Lessons for Composition Teachers
"Those who do not know their history have no future." This is a quote from a YouTube clip I showed my seniors in Southwest Literature depicting the stereotyping of the Native American. I asked them if they agreed or disagreed with that statement. To my surprise they agreed. I then asked them to explain. The responses varied, but the consensus summarized was if we do not see and recognize what we have done, accomplished, and learned then we will become stagnant (we discussed what stagnant meant) and never grow, therefore, having no future. I was thoroughly excited about this response since the focus of the class is discovering where we come from, where we are, and where we plan to go with the help of the literature we read in class.
Donald Stewart is basically saying the same thing from the video. We as English teachers have been taught for decades how we should teach English. I remember my English class in middle school - diagram sentences. That was basically about all I remember. Then in high school I no longer needed to diagram sentences, but understand how to write the formulaic five paragraph essay. That formula proved beneficial in my undergraduate work; obviously, I graduated. I did learn the history of the English language (or took a course in the history of the English language), as well as a grueling syntax and grammar class in college. I really don't remember much of my undergraduate work; most of what I learned about English, I learned by teaching a high schooler. That is when my grammar, syntax, writing, speaking all improved. When you teach something you become an expert. But when we become experts, we tend to become comfortable with our methods and practices and not too accepting of new and innovative things because that means more learning. I guess Stewart is saying we need to continue our personal educational growth in order to keep up with our present so we become successful in our future.
Step Up to Writing, Writing Alive, The Six Traits of Writing, The Six Traits of Writing Plus One, The Southern Colorado Writing Project, Kagan, Lindamood-Bell - all of these are, or once were, new innovative ways of teaching writing and/or reading. Teach the steps. Teach the process. Teach the basics. Learn from your peers. Teach your peers. All of these methods enable us as educators to find the best way to teach; but if we are only told how the method works and not shown how to utilize the method then it becomes useless. Stewart does a fine job about telling us how to move away from the grammar, formulas, trends; but he does not show us how to do it. That is the problem with education. We are expected to do so much, be responsible for so much, be accountable for so much, but never really taught so much. Our job is on-the-job training.
As teachers of composition, we need to be aware of what our students need. Stewart talks a little bit about this with the technology portion of his article. We need to keep up with the times and advancements. A good teacher responds to the students; and when one method does not work, it is time to change things up a bit. I will admit, I was the formulaic five-paragraph essay teacher - it's easy, it's comfortable, and it is manageable. It was what I was taught, and I turned out just fine. But over the past few years, I have moved to what Stewart calls the contemporary type of composition. I no longer tell my students how long their composition must be. I want to see if they can communicate their message in the best possible way; whether it is five paragraphs or fifteen paragraphs. But just like us, they have been trained that a sentence must contain at least five sentences, an essay has an introduction, body and conclusion, and everything is wrapped in a pretty box with a bow. Looks are deceiving. I do emphasize the grammar and punctuation, though. Our students are accountable for two mandatory state tests that determine our accreditation - CSAP and ACT. I do not require the diagramming of sentences - it's archaic; however, I do emphasize and teach complex grammar rules that ACT likes to use.
I suppose my true and total response to Mr. Stewart is this:
Donald Stewart is basically saying the same thing from the video. We as English teachers have been taught for decades how we should teach English. I remember my English class in middle school - diagram sentences. That was basically about all I remember. Then in high school I no longer needed to diagram sentences, but understand how to write the formulaic five paragraph essay. That formula proved beneficial in my undergraduate work; obviously, I graduated. I did learn the history of the English language (or took a course in the history of the English language), as well as a grueling syntax and grammar class in college. I really don't remember much of my undergraduate work; most of what I learned about English, I learned by teaching a high schooler. That is when my grammar, syntax, writing, speaking all improved. When you teach something you become an expert. But when we become experts, we tend to become comfortable with our methods and practices and not too accepting of new and innovative things because that means more learning. I guess Stewart is saying we need to continue our personal educational growth in order to keep up with our present so we become successful in our future.
Step Up to Writing, Writing Alive, The Six Traits of Writing, The Six Traits of Writing Plus One, The Southern Colorado Writing Project, Kagan, Lindamood-Bell - all of these are, or once were, new innovative ways of teaching writing and/or reading. Teach the steps. Teach the process. Teach the basics. Learn from your peers. Teach your peers. All of these methods enable us as educators to find the best way to teach; but if we are only told how the method works and not shown how to utilize the method then it becomes useless. Stewart does a fine job about telling us how to move away from the grammar, formulas, trends; but he does not show us how to do it. That is the problem with education. We are expected to do so much, be responsible for so much, be accountable for so much, but never really taught so much. Our job is on-the-job training.
As teachers of composition, we need to be aware of what our students need. Stewart talks a little bit about this with the technology portion of his article. We need to keep up with the times and advancements. A good teacher responds to the students; and when one method does not work, it is time to change things up a bit. I will admit, I was the formulaic five-paragraph essay teacher - it's easy, it's comfortable, and it is manageable. It was what I was taught, and I turned out just fine. But over the past few years, I have moved to what Stewart calls the contemporary type of composition. I no longer tell my students how long their composition must be. I want to see if they can communicate their message in the best possible way; whether it is five paragraphs or fifteen paragraphs. But just like us, they have been trained that a sentence must contain at least five sentences, an essay has an introduction, body and conclusion, and everything is wrapped in a pretty box with a bow. Looks are deceiving. I do emphasize the grammar and punctuation, though. Our students are accountable for two mandatory state tests that determine our accreditation - CSAP and ACT. I do not require the diagramming of sentences - it's archaic; however, I do emphasize and teach complex grammar rules that ACT likes to use.
I suppose my true and total response to Mr. Stewart is this:
Old habits die hard, and old dogs have difficulty learning new tricks.
BUT...
If I do not understand my past, I will have no future; nor will my students.
THEREFORE...
I will embrace and learn the new methods so as not to become stagnant.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Poor, poor Edwin...but Thank You!
Edwin Hopkins in a mover and a shaker. I will thank him everyday I see my students in my classroom. Because of him, I think I have been blessed with the numbers I have in my classes. When I first began teaching six English classes at a school with 1400 plus students, I averaged about 32-37 students in each class. Talk about overload; but I didn't complain because I needed tenure, roots, rights to the position. Three of the six classes were composition classes - Expository writing to be exact. As a new teacher, nobody told me what I was supposed to teach, how it was to be taught, or when I should teach what was expected. All I received was a text book and a roster, and of course a friendly welcome and good luck.
Teaching in public schools seems to have changed. New teachers are now offered a mentor, a curriculum guide, resources to provide support and smaller class sizes. All of this is to keep good teachers in the school and help them make tenure. That is just within the past ten years. The trend in teaching English has definitely changed. Gone are the days of my three Expos. classes of 35 plus juniors/seniors, seven period day, and "here's the book, good luck". However, I would not trade those days for anything; they made me the teacher I am today. If I could handle that, I could handle pretty much anything else. And I have...but it is nice to have smaller class sizes, more conference time for individual student attention, and less time spent reading student papers. We have now moved to a 90 minute, 4X4, block schedule (with obvious pros and cons). I only teach three classes now, have more student contact time, and love it! My Expos. classes (2) are at 15 and 22 students. I have never had classes that small my entire teaching career! Most of our English classes are relatively small; but, there are some downfalls to that. Our electives are overloaded. The Spanish classes average 38 students per class, math is in the 30's, social studies is experiencing an increase of numbers as well. Now that we are all becoming teachers of writing and reading, we all need to have manageable numbers in our rooms.
I understand Hopkins' pedagogy, but times they are a changin'. With the current trend in our economy, technology, and education, students need to be prepared for what awaits them upon graduation. And of course the ever-looming state assessments, teacher accountability, performance, school accountability and accreditation, AYP, SAR, CSAP, ACT, and any other acronym eduction wants to throw in our face change teaching practices. We teach our content, but we need to focus on the skills to learn whatever content is taught. My students will read The Joy Luck Club, Walden Two, Bless Me Ultima, Hamlet, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, and a variety of other readings; however, I will not focus on what the story is about, I will focus on how to find the story. Inferencing, questioning, understanding, clarifying, supporting - all of the skills necessary to succeed in the world, along with some historical, cultural, and societal issues they may face. This is where literature and composition intertwine. Not only will they hopefully be successful on high-stakes tests and school accountability reports, but they will learn something useful. Going back to Hopkins and his desire to have smaller class sizes, this kind of teaching allows the instructor to have one-on-one time with students to conference, seminar, share, elaborate without the stress of how many papers need to be graded by when leading to shared success.
But much like Bishop, Hopkins describes the burn-out. We need time for ourselves to debrief, relax and reflect. That is where the balancing act begins. I am a mother first and foremost, then I am a wife. Next, I am a daughter, sister, granddaughter, niece, cousin. After all of that I am a friend, a teacher, and a student. Do my roles always fall into this order - no, definitely not. I am constantly juggling these roles 24/7 (yes, even in my sleep). I rarely have time to be Shaynee. And that is what I think Hopkins is trying to change. We choose our professions - police, firemen, CEO's all multi-task and have stressful jobs. So to say one profession is more demanding than another is not a fair statement. PE teachers are a prime example of this - they rarely take home papers to grade, but they do have to plan, teach, inspire, and encourage. They are part of a stressful profession; and the good ones, as any good teacher teaching any subject, feel the stress and pressures of the job. I am reminded of Atticus Finch when he tells Scout "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb in his skin and walk around in it."
We all have a cross to bear - this may coincide with Hopkins' spiritual side - and I believe that God does not give us a cross we cannot bear. I think a teacher needs to be a spiritual individual in order to inspire others - we practice what we preach to get the results we want. That's my take on it, anyway.
Edwin Hopkins is my hero in the sense that he sacrificed his time, energy, and life to a profession that has evolved over the years. Because of his efforts I am able to enjoy what I do professionally and personally. Thank you, Edwin.
Teaching in public schools seems to have changed. New teachers are now offered a mentor, a curriculum guide, resources to provide support and smaller class sizes. All of this is to keep good teachers in the school and help them make tenure. That is just within the past ten years. The trend in teaching English has definitely changed. Gone are the days of my three Expos. classes of 35 plus juniors/seniors, seven period day, and "here's the book, good luck". However, I would not trade those days for anything; they made me the teacher I am today. If I could handle that, I could handle pretty much anything else. And I have...but it is nice to have smaller class sizes, more conference time for individual student attention, and less time spent reading student papers. We have now moved to a 90 minute, 4X4, block schedule (with obvious pros and cons). I only teach three classes now, have more student contact time, and love it! My Expos. classes (2) are at 15 and 22 students. I have never had classes that small my entire teaching career! Most of our English classes are relatively small; but, there are some downfalls to that. Our electives are overloaded. The Spanish classes average 38 students per class, math is in the 30's, social studies is experiencing an increase of numbers as well. Now that we are all becoming teachers of writing and reading, we all need to have manageable numbers in our rooms.
I understand Hopkins' pedagogy, but times they are a changin'. With the current trend in our economy, technology, and education, students need to be prepared for what awaits them upon graduation. And of course the ever-looming state assessments, teacher accountability, performance, school accountability and accreditation, AYP, SAR, CSAP, ACT, and any other acronym eduction wants to throw in our face change teaching practices. We teach our content, but we need to focus on the skills to learn whatever content is taught. My students will read The Joy Luck Club, Walden Two, Bless Me Ultima, Hamlet, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, and a variety of other readings; however, I will not focus on what the story is about, I will focus on how to find the story. Inferencing, questioning, understanding, clarifying, supporting - all of the skills necessary to succeed in the world, along with some historical, cultural, and societal issues they may face. This is where literature and composition intertwine. Not only will they hopefully be successful on high-stakes tests and school accountability reports, but they will learn something useful. Going back to Hopkins and his desire to have smaller class sizes, this kind of teaching allows the instructor to have one-on-one time with students to conference, seminar, share, elaborate without the stress of how many papers need to be graded by when leading to shared success.
But much like Bishop, Hopkins describes the burn-out. We need time for ourselves to debrief, relax and reflect. That is where the balancing act begins. I am a mother first and foremost, then I am a wife. Next, I am a daughter, sister, granddaughter, niece, cousin. After all of that I am a friend, a teacher, and a student. Do my roles always fall into this order - no, definitely not. I am constantly juggling these roles 24/7 (yes, even in my sleep). I rarely have time to be Shaynee. And that is what I think Hopkins is trying to change. We choose our professions - police, firemen, CEO's all multi-task and have stressful jobs. So to say one profession is more demanding than another is not a fair statement. PE teachers are a prime example of this - they rarely take home papers to grade, but they do have to plan, teach, inspire, and encourage. They are part of a stressful profession; and the good ones, as any good teacher teaching any subject, feel the stress and pressures of the job. I am reminded of Atticus Finch when he tells Scout "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb in his skin and walk around in it."
We all have a cross to bear - this may coincide with Hopkins' spiritual side - and I believe that God does not give us a cross we cannot bear. I think a teacher needs to be a spiritual individual in order to inspire others - we practice what we preach to get the results we want. That's my take on it, anyway.
Edwin Hopkins is my hero in the sense that he sacrificed his time, energy, and life to a profession that has evolved over the years. Because of his efforts I am able to enjoy what I do professionally and personally. Thank you, Edwin.
Against the Odds
This is the first article I have read of four that has meant anything to me. As a teacher, I can totally relate to the pressures Bishop describes. The best of us give our all with very little appreciation in sometimes volatile and unpleasant environments, working with people who don't care about the trends because they come and go. This article reassured me as to why I do what I do - it is for those who are the "underdogs" and are seeing things for the first time. I do, like any good teacher, experience 'burn-out' each year; but I keep going because I feel I need to and I want to.
I really liked what Bishop said about collaboration and professional development. We, as educators, are shown so many different methods of teaching writing, reading, methods in classroom management, cooperative learning techniques, assessment and enrichment; the list goes on and on. As educators the question is how can we use all of the different methods in one classroom in one school year without feeling overloaded - do we just close our doors and teach? I've been told to do that, as well as leave the door open so my room is more inviting and welcoming. But then that conflicts with safety issues...blah, blah, blah. My job is to keep kids safe, offer them opportunity, enrich their lives, and pray they succeed. I like working with my peers to create a curriculum that might be beneficial for students as well as fun to teach; I like to encourage my colleagues to see things in a new light and try new methods even if they are a bit apprehensive. Doing the same thing over and over and over each year will cause the 'burn-out', weariness, fatigue, boredom, repetition, beat, blase, spent, played out, sleepy, uninterested, on last leg teacher. We, just like our students, do not like to be talked at; we thrive being talked with. We like to share, listen, and celebrate with each other our trials, tribulations, and successes. It is what we are as teachers, parents, friends, children, colleagues, spouses, etc. In our lives, we find a balance and that balance depends upon how we cope with our experiences everyday.
I think each of us could possibly write our own "Convention Poem", except replace convention with teacher or scholar. We all have experiences to share and can possibly relate to those experiences. I read Nic's "Teacher Poem", and I can totally see what he is talking about. We have all been there at one point or another but are maybe afraid to say it out loud to avoid sounding like the pessimist or whiner. But if we can't depend on one another for the support we need, they what is the use of doing the job? Bottom line - we don't do the job for our egos, families, or wallets; we do it for the kids seeing things for the first time, pursuing success, and ultimately becoming members of our community. The cycle is never ending.
I really liked what Bishop said about collaboration and professional development. We, as educators, are shown so many different methods of teaching writing, reading, methods in classroom management, cooperative learning techniques, assessment and enrichment; the list goes on and on. As educators the question is how can we use all of the different methods in one classroom in one school year without feeling overloaded - do we just close our doors and teach? I've been told to do that, as well as leave the door open so my room is more inviting and welcoming. But then that conflicts with safety issues...blah, blah, blah. My job is to keep kids safe, offer them opportunity, enrich their lives, and pray they succeed. I like working with my peers to create a curriculum that might be beneficial for students as well as fun to teach; I like to encourage my colleagues to see things in a new light and try new methods even if they are a bit apprehensive. Doing the same thing over and over and over each year will cause the 'burn-out', weariness, fatigue, boredom, repetition, beat, blase, spent, played out, sleepy, uninterested, on last leg teacher. We, just like our students, do not like to be talked at; we thrive being talked with. We like to share, listen, and celebrate with each other our trials, tribulations, and successes. It is what we are as teachers, parents, friends, children, colleagues, spouses, etc. In our lives, we find a balance and that balance depends upon how we cope with our experiences everyday.
I think each of us could possibly write our own "Convention Poem", except replace convention with teacher or scholar. We all have experiences to share and can possibly relate to those experiences. I read Nic's "Teacher Poem", and I can totally see what he is talking about. We have all been there at one point or another but are maybe afraid to say it out loud to avoid sounding like the pessimist or whiner. But if we can't depend on one another for the support we need, they what is the use of doing the job? Bottom line - we don't do the job for our egos, families, or wallets; we do it for the kids seeing things for the first time, pursuing success, and ultimately becoming members of our community. The cycle is never ending.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Packaging Theory
Jeffrey Williams talks a lot about the growth of theory throughout the transformation of anthologies. I understand he thinks the best way to teach theory is to include the different types of theories throughout history to create one "perfect" course in theory.
Theories change throughout history, and what influences the theory of the moment is what people are experiencing at the time. Theorists and publications are going to be writing and will be written for the general audience to make a name and profit for themselves; theory is an industry, and I think that is what Williams is addressing in his article. Theory has shifted from critical reading and analysis to interpretation of reading. Culture and beliefs greatly influence what the public will believe. Williams states that those who are intellectual, or considered intellectual, will be the most influential. That is true in all cases of society. The more popular a person is, the louder the voice. But who determines who is popular, influential, powerful? Williams seems to address this topic beginning on page 285. The chronological model of theoretical anthologies presents the "superstars" of theory from start to present. If these theorists are worthy of being published in such a book, they must be important - the size of their name in the table of contents proves this. Therefore, they become unquestionable, unapproachable, and untouchable.
Williams also talks about how literature and theory have intertwined causing theory to become an "elite work in literary studies". This type of study is only for those of intellectual advancement, a very limited audience. Which leads to the argument who is determining what is worth reading and critiquing? Who gives whom the power?
When a person reads about a particular theory, whether it is a theory like feminism or a theorist like Foucault, that person is then influenced by the theory or theorist. This can cause a problem in the sense that where does the reader's thought end and the theorist's thought begin? The trend is, and this is what I believe, what is popular at the time is observed by the influential; the influential then state what is popular causing the public to agree and follow. That is what any kind of theory is based on, influence and power.
To find a balance now, with all of the theories available, is the trick. We must be open-minded enough to the theoretical differences, know the trends and understand the historical difference and importance among the theories. I think that is why Williams addresses the coincidence of the publications of anthologies as well as individualizing the major kinds of groupings of theories. Trying to balance everything is the goal; and if accomplished, the perfect theory course and the perfect theory, theoretically, can be created.
Theories change throughout history, and what influences the theory of the moment is what people are experiencing at the time. Theorists and publications are going to be writing and will be written for the general audience to make a name and profit for themselves; theory is an industry, and I think that is what Williams is addressing in his article. Theory has shifted from critical reading and analysis to interpretation of reading. Culture and beliefs greatly influence what the public will believe. Williams states that those who are intellectual, or considered intellectual, will be the most influential. That is true in all cases of society. The more popular a person is, the louder the voice. But who determines who is popular, influential, powerful? Williams seems to address this topic beginning on page 285. The chronological model of theoretical anthologies presents the "superstars" of theory from start to present. If these theorists are worthy of being published in such a book, they must be important - the size of their name in the table of contents proves this. Therefore, they become unquestionable, unapproachable, and untouchable.
Williams also talks about how literature and theory have intertwined causing theory to become an "elite work in literary studies". This type of study is only for those of intellectual advancement, a very limited audience. Which leads to the argument who is determining what is worth reading and critiquing? Who gives whom the power?
When a person reads about a particular theory, whether it is a theory like feminism or a theorist like Foucault, that person is then influenced by the theory or theorist. This can cause a problem in the sense that where does the reader's thought end and the theorist's thought begin? The trend is, and this is what I believe, what is popular at the time is observed by the influential; the influential then state what is popular causing the public to agree and follow. That is what any kind of theory is based on, influence and power.
To find a balance now, with all of the theories available, is the trick. We must be open-minded enough to the theoretical differences, know the trends and understand the historical difference and importance among the theories. I think that is why Williams addresses the coincidence of the publications of anthologies as well as individualizing the major kinds of groupings of theories. Trying to balance everything is the goal; and if accomplished, the perfect theory course and the perfect theory, theoretically, can be created.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Elaborating Our History: A Look at Mid-19th Century First Books of Composition
Writing practices of the mid-19th century sound similar to what contemporary high school students were and, in some cases, are expected to practice. Lucille Schultz looks at how teaching writing and approaching writing were viewed in the 19th century. I must say that I agree with some of John Walker's beliefs about teaching writing; but for the most part, I really like John Frost and his outlook on writing.
Walker's text book is interesting. He offers four main sections to the book - themes, regular subjects, easy essays, and narrative. It sounds much like any other composition text book I have seen. Specific explanations are given and writing samples are provided. In the section titled themes, Walker asks the writer to offer some statement of truth with appropriate support. That is what any teacher would expect from a student. In the section titled regular subjects, Walker explores the modes of writing - definition, cause, effects, etc. The regular subjects offer a scaffold for the themes. I agree with this format since I, as a teacher in a high school, expect ample support in my students' writing as well as an evident format. However, I disagree with Walker when he states that young writers need to memorize rules first before writing. That, to me, sounds like regurgitation. I despise the word because of the image it evokes. Regurgitation is as bad an image as stagnant. Both are disgusting, literally and metaphorically. I tell my students that I do not want them to regurgitate information they have read, memorized, or heard in class; nor do I want them to become stagnant in their writing styles. Regurgitation and stagnation do not allow growth to occur; therefore, I disagree with Walker on his point about memorization before creation.
Frost, however, has a similar pedagogy to present writing practices and how it is taught today. Students can be given a prompt about literally anything and will respond using their personal experiences as a baseline. It is almost impossible not to draw from your experiences. The summer vacation prompt is a classic prompt still used today in many classrooms. I think these simple prompts allow students to become comfortable with their writing subject and writing ability.
Yet, I did notice that remediation can become necessary in higher grade levels, such as a collegiate level, when writing in the lower grades becomes too loose. Many of our high school graduates are enrolled in remedial courses because of the lack of structure or instruction in high school. One thing Walker and Frost both touch on is structure and instruction. Young writers need structure and direct instruction in order to create a composition. Whether the student learns the grammar and writing rules first or experiments with writing first, as long as structure is available to the child/student, then success and growth is almost always guaranteed.
Structure of curriculum has not changed so much from the mid-19th century. Those who were no doubt going to attend universities were taught writing skills for that learning environment; those who were going into the workforce were only taught the basic skills needed to succeed in the chosen field. That is not so different from the arrangement of English classes today. We, as educators, encourage our students to attend post-secondary schools, but I personally don't insist on it (I feel that I would be pushing my middle-class values on them if I did insist). Not all students are college material - there, I said it. But that does not give me the right to deny any student the opportunity to try to accelerate and achieve. I teach basic writing to all students, real world writing skills (memos, email/Internet etiquette, letters, resume, report writing, etc.) as well as expository writing so they can learn to better express themselves no matter what they choose to pursue after graduation.
Some schools ability group (tracking is a no-no in public education); those who are labeled advanced based on test scores are placed in a class with other students of the same abilities, those who are average are grouped together, and the low students are grouped together. This poses many issues, but this is neither the time nor the place to discuss right now. Getting back to my point, our course offerings allow students to choose what type of writing experience they will have. Honors and Advanced Placement Language and Literature courses allow students who are high achievers the opportunity to grow as students and embrace the university expectations prior to attendance. These are the same students referenced in Schultz's article. The curriculum and literature are "preparing the upper-class students for careers in the law and ministry". May not so much ministry any more, but definitely high paying and prestigious careers. But, every student has the opportunity to enroll in the rigorous class. The end question is are the students enrolled in the classes willing to work?
I guess my whole point is the teacher must look at student needs first. What must the student need in order to survive no matter what choice is made after graduation? Start with basic writing and understand the foundations of writing first, then advance to more complex forms of writing. This will allow students to express themselves as well as reflect, grow, and defend, support, argue, communicate their ideas with others in a clear and concise manner. Frost and Walker are both right in some of their beliefs about writing. Looking at the different pedagogies is really allowing me to piece together my own theory and belief about writing and teaching writing.
Walker's text book is interesting. He offers four main sections to the book - themes, regular subjects, easy essays, and narrative. It sounds much like any other composition text book I have seen. Specific explanations are given and writing samples are provided. In the section titled themes, Walker asks the writer to offer some statement of truth with appropriate support. That is what any teacher would expect from a student. In the section titled regular subjects, Walker explores the modes of writing - definition, cause, effects, etc. The regular subjects offer a scaffold for the themes. I agree with this format since I, as a teacher in a high school, expect ample support in my students' writing as well as an evident format. However, I disagree with Walker when he states that young writers need to memorize rules first before writing. That, to me, sounds like regurgitation. I despise the word because of the image it evokes. Regurgitation is as bad an image as stagnant. Both are disgusting, literally and metaphorically. I tell my students that I do not want them to regurgitate information they have read, memorized, or heard in class; nor do I want them to become stagnant in their writing styles. Regurgitation and stagnation do not allow growth to occur; therefore, I disagree with Walker on his point about memorization before creation.
Frost, however, has a similar pedagogy to present writing practices and how it is taught today. Students can be given a prompt about literally anything and will respond using their personal experiences as a baseline. It is almost impossible not to draw from your experiences. The summer vacation prompt is a classic prompt still used today in many classrooms. I think these simple prompts allow students to become comfortable with their writing subject and writing ability.
Yet, I did notice that remediation can become necessary in higher grade levels, such as a collegiate level, when writing in the lower grades becomes too loose. Many of our high school graduates are enrolled in remedial courses because of the lack of structure or instruction in high school. One thing Walker and Frost both touch on is structure and instruction. Young writers need structure and direct instruction in order to create a composition. Whether the student learns the grammar and writing rules first or experiments with writing first, as long as structure is available to the child/student, then success and growth is almost always guaranteed.
Structure of curriculum has not changed so much from the mid-19th century. Those who were no doubt going to attend universities were taught writing skills for that learning environment; those who were going into the workforce were only taught the basic skills needed to succeed in the chosen field. That is not so different from the arrangement of English classes today. We, as educators, encourage our students to attend post-secondary schools, but I personally don't insist on it (I feel that I would be pushing my middle-class values on them if I did insist). Not all students are college material - there, I said it. But that does not give me the right to deny any student the opportunity to try to accelerate and achieve. I teach basic writing to all students, real world writing skills (memos, email/Internet etiquette, letters, resume, report writing, etc.) as well as expository writing so they can learn to better express themselves no matter what they choose to pursue after graduation.
Some schools ability group (tracking is a no-no in public education); those who are labeled advanced based on test scores are placed in a class with other students of the same abilities, those who are average are grouped together, and the low students are grouped together. This poses many issues, but this is neither the time nor the place to discuss right now. Getting back to my point, our course offerings allow students to choose what type of writing experience they will have. Honors and Advanced Placement Language and Literature courses allow students who are high achievers the opportunity to grow as students and embrace the university expectations prior to attendance. These are the same students referenced in Schultz's article. The curriculum and literature are "preparing the upper-class students for careers in the law and ministry". May not so much ministry any more, but definitely high paying and prestigious careers. But, every student has the opportunity to enroll in the rigorous class. The end question is are the students enrolled in the classes willing to work?
I guess my whole point is the teacher must look at student needs first. What must the student need in order to survive no matter what choice is made after graduation? Start with basic writing and understand the foundations of writing first, then advance to more complex forms of writing. This will allow students to express themselves as well as reflect, grow, and defend, support, argue, communicate their ideas with others in a clear and concise manner. Frost and Walker are both right in some of their beliefs about writing. Looking at the different pedagogies is really allowing me to piece together my own theory and belief about writing and teaching writing.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Composition at the Turn of the 21st Century
After reading the article by Richard Fulkerson, I have come to the conclusion that what and how people write is a direct result of what people are exposed to and experience. He states, in the very first paragraph, that "those large questions of who we are, what we wish to achieve with students, and how we ought to go about it" are questions raised while trying to develop a curriculum for writing. Is writing formulaic or is it social? I think it is a little bit of both, personally; however, after reading this article I am almost certain it is a result of both.
Fulkerson lists, under Analytical Scheme on page 657, four questions to successfully create a philosophy of writing to construct a composition course. These four questions are answered throughout the article. I have to admit that I did not really find anything interesting until page 655, when he discusses teachers imposing their social values in to the class; hence, CCS. When does a composition class take a turn to the political, religious, or cultural platform? It does seem difficult as a teacher not to impose my values onto a class. However, I do believe that we must be aware of our own prejudices, biases, etc., in order to be effective in the classroom. It is very easy to preach based on literature read in a class, especially if the teacher has a passion about the literature. Our writing prompts tend to sway toward our opinions, our method of teaching tends to be in one direction, and our grading is sometimes based on what we want to hear because it is comfortable for us. Are we really challenging our students to become independent readers and writers, or are we so wrapped up in our own personal agendas and egos that we are harming students by not allowing them to write to their full potential because of a grade?
Students are so concerned about grades and pleasing the professor/teacher to receive a high grade, that they tend to lose sight of what is important to them. Fulkerson states that "students are free to write their papers from any perspective they choose. They have only to make a thoughtful case for their position." However, because of that ever looming grade, students will choose not to oppose the professor/teacher. Writing is very intimate and a level of trust, respect, and comfort must be gained in order for a student's writing to be honest; but does the instructor allow for that kind of relationship to develop and prosper? Composition instructors should teach how to write, but not what to write. Topic is most times irrelevant; what is important is can a student support what he or she is discussing. Fulkerson seems to support this when he states, "Many traditional features of academic writing, such as having a clear argumentative thesis and backing it up to convince the reader, are put on a back burner." It is essential to teach the fundamentals of writing to understand writing.
Ownership of writing is another issue raised through Fulkerson's article. What influences the writing? Personal, cultural, political, religious, familial, etc. experiences have some sort of influence on an author. Fulkerson speaks about the expressive teacher. An expressive teacher may want to help students "mature and become self-aware, more reflective", or using writing as a "healing" method or "therapy", or write for "creative self-expression". Isn't composition all of these things - the more expressive the to the different types of composition, the more well-rounded the composer? Writing is an art form and those who write well project their voice without preaching. Their tone is clear as well as their message. When teaching writing, don't we want to make it attractive to students? The order of the modes of writing naturally lend themselves to begin "expressive" writing starting with personal narrative (the 'I' writing) finishing with analysis and synthesis (the 'why' writing).
Writing is a process and it must be taught as a process. Fulkerson addresses this issue at length. Teachers teach writing as a process, baby steps. Once a basic process is learned and understood, a writer can add, delete, modify the writing to fit personal needs and/or styles. New writers need guidance and the writing process is a good start. Does that mean a writer must always first brainstorm, then draft, revise, edit, and publish? Possibly. But once a writer is comfortable with his or her style of process, the writing becomes personal and exciting to the author.
I agree with Fulkerson when he states that teachers "want argument from their students" but need to be supported with data. Again, topic is irrelevant; can you support what you are saying using factual information. Argumentative and persuasive writing go hand-in-hand and are the most difficult modes of writing to complete because this writing utilizes higher order thinking skills. This is where a teacher can run into some difficulty. There does seem to be some confusion when a teacher teaches one thing and expects another. I also agree with the Fulkerson's philosophy that the teacher needs to be very clear as to what he or she expects from the students' writing. Again, new writers need guidance.
I did have difficulty with the genre section of the article. Genre is found in literature (i.e. fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc.). Modes are found in writing (narrative, descriptive, compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution, definition, etc.). I believe that mode creates genre. Take any piece of literature. Universal themes exist across the literary board; Shakespeare is a prime example. A student could take any one of the modes to write a paper in a Shakespearean genre class using any of the universal themes found in any one of the plays - power, greed, religion, politics, jealousy. Themes are found in a genre leading to discovery through writing. Literature and writing go hand-in-hand.
This entire article made me realize and reiterated three things: 1) do not impose my values/beliefs on to students if I want honest writing, 2) writing is a process to help student growth in the academic, personal, and professional world, 3) writing and literature are partners.
Fulkerson lists, under Analytical Scheme on page 657, four questions to successfully create a philosophy of writing to construct a composition course. These four questions are answered throughout the article. I have to admit that I did not really find anything interesting until page 655, when he discusses teachers imposing their social values in to the class; hence, CCS. When does a composition class take a turn to the political, religious, or cultural platform? It does seem difficult as a teacher not to impose my values onto a class. However, I do believe that we must be aware of our own prejudices, biases, etc., in order to be effective in the classroom. It is very easy to preach based on literature read in a class, especially if the teacher has a passion about the literature. Our writing prompts tend to sway toward our opinions, our method of teaching tends to be in one direction, and our grading is sometimes based on what we want to hear because it is comfortable for us. Are we really challenging our students to become independent readers and writers, or are we so wrapped up in our own personal agendas and egos that we are harming students by not allowing them to write to their full potential because of a grade?
Students are so concerned about grades and pleasing the professor/teacher to receive a high grade, that they tend to lose sight of what is important to them. Fulkerson states that "students are free to write their papers from any perspective they choose. They have only to make a thoughtful case for their position." However, because of that ever looming grade, students will choose not to oppose the professor/teacher. Writing is very intimate and a level of trust, respect, and comfort must be gained in order for a student's writing to be honest; but does the instructor allow for that kind of relationship to develop and prosper? Composition instructors should teach how to write, but not what to write. Topic is most times irrelevant; what is important is can a student support what he or she is discussing. Fulkerson seems to support this when he states, "Many traditional features of academic writing, such as having a clear argumentative thesis and backing it up to convince the reader, are put on a back burner." It is essential to teach the fundamentals of writing to understand writing.
Ownership of writing is another issue raised through Fulkerson's article. What influences the writing? Personal, cultural, political, religious, familial, etc. experiences have some sort of influence on an author. Fulkerson speaks about the expressive teacher. An expressive teacher may want to help students "mature and become self-aware, more reflective", or using writing as a "healing" method or "therapy", or write for "creative self-expression". Isn't composition all of these things - the more expressive the to the different types of composition, the more well-rounded the composer? Writing is an art form and those who write well project their voice without preaching. Their tone is clear as well as their message. When teaching writing, don't we want to make it attractive to students? The order of the modes of writing naturally lend themselves to begin "expressive" writing starting with personal narrative (the 'I' writing) finishing with analysis and synthesis (the 'why' writing).
Writing is a process and it must be taught as a process. Fulkerson addresses this issue at length. Teachers teach writing as a process, baby steps. Once a basic process is learned and understood, a writer can add, delete, modify the writing to fit personal needs and/or styles. New writers need guidance and the writing process is a good start. Does that mean a writer must always first brainstorm, then draft, revise, edit, and publish? Possibly. But once a writer is comfortable with his or her style of process, the writing becomes personal and exciting to the author.
I agree with Fulkerson when he states that teachers "want argument from their students" but need to be supported with data. Again, topic is irrelevant; can you support what you are saying using factual information. Argumentative and persuasive writing go hand-in-hand and are the most difficult modes of writing to complete because this writing utilizes higher order thinking skills. This is where a teacher can run into some difficulty. There does seem to be some confusion when a teacher teaches one thing and expects another. I also agree with the Fulkerson's philosophy that the teacher needs to be very clear as to what he or she expects from the students' writing. Again, new writers need guidance.
I did have difficulty with the genre section of the article. Genre is found in literature (i.e. fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc.). Modes are found in writing (narrative, descriptive, compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution, definition, etc.). I believe that mode creates genre. Take any piece of literature. Universal themes exist across the literary board; Shakespeare is a prime example. A student could take any one of the modes to write a paper in a Shakespearean genre class using any of the universal themes found in any one of the plays - power, greed, religion, politics, jealousy. Themes are found in a genre leading to discovery through writing. Literature and writing go hand-in-hand.
This entire article made me realize and reiterated three things: 1) do not impose my values/beliefs on to students if I want honest writing, 2) writing is a process to help student growth in the academic, personal, and professional world, 3) writing and literature are partners.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Why Comp./Theory?
Writing is a very important type of communication. People write thank you notes, memos, letters, stories, etc. It is our way of communicating with the world in which we live. My first and main reason for obtaining an MA in English was for job/career advancement; however, as I have traveled through classes thus far, I realize how much I have grown and learned from the experience. I am rejuvenated and extcited about learning and teaching again. No longer do I feel stagnant, and I believe that excitement has made me more effective in the classroom as a teacher and student. I truly believe one must practice what he/she preaches, and I feel I am definitely practicing.
As a teacher, I have always guided (told) my high school students what or how to write. I have done it for a few years now; but enrolling in this graduate program, I realize that it is much more difficult to write something than it is to teach it. I can teach the modes of writing, the research paper using MLA and APA formats, the resume and business letter format, but doing so myself creates a far greater challenge. I have set ego aside through this learning process and actually listened to my peers. I have experienced much personal growth. I expect that of my students, so it must not be that bad - the best way to lead is by example, right? So far, my experience as a student has made me more aware of what my expectations for my students are and my expectations for me.
As a teacher, I have always guided (told) my high school students what or how to write. I have done it for a few years now; but enrolling in this graduate program, I realize that it is much more difficult to write something than it is to teach it. I can teach the modes of writing, the research paper using MLA and APA formats, the resume and business letter format, but doing so myself creates a far greater challenge. I have set ego aside through this learning process and actually listened to my peers. I have experienced much personal growth. I expect that of my students, so it must not be that bad - the best way to lead is by example, right? So far, my experience as a student has made me more aware of what my expectations for my students are and my expectations for me.
Writing allows us to explore who we are, where we come from, where we are going, what we value, and what we believe. Our best writing comes from what we know. I have pondered authorship, its existance and origin. What we write is usually based on what we have experienced as an individual and what we feel is necessary for others to know. Writing is very personal and intimate; it is very difficult to tell someone what to write and how to write it because who then is the author? Again, that seems to lead back to the notion of authorship. For whom are we really writing - ourselves, our audience, our teacher (who is ultimately incharge of the assessment and grade)? What is truly influencing our writing and why do we feel the need to write? These are some questions I have asked many times throughout the past semester after looking at literature through a different "lens" and focusing that "lens" a little more.
I hope this course allows me to understand how to teach young minds (so cliche' I know) to embrace writing for themselves, not for me or anyone else. I hope to offer some balance between structure and guidance without imposing my values/beliefs so they show in my students' writings. But how can my values/beliefs not be imposed when I am influencing people based on what I say? We are constantly being influenced everyday; so how do we remain an individual? Who is the real author?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
