I believe all students can learn and they all have the same opportunity to be successful. There it is in a nutshell. I know it sounds generic, so I will explain.
As a teacher, I give all of my students the same opportunity to be successful in my classroom. What they decide to do with that opportunity is up to them. They choose to come to class, to do the work, to participate and learn. I cannot force that upon anyone. In order for that to happen, my students must feel safe in the environment I create as the teacher. I give my students a lot of freedom in the classroom. It is all about choices and consequences; and if they do not like the consequences, then they need to make the appropriate choices. I remind them that there are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened; then I ask them which category do they or will they belong.
Respect is key in this process of teaching. I respect my students; therefore they respect me. There may be some students who do not like me and visa verse, but we still have respect for one another. Because I respect them and they me, discipline is not an issue and they accept the consequences of their choices without complaint. It all comes down to do they want to be successful and graduate? I am there to provide assistance, guidance, and knowledge to help them be productive in an environment very foreign to them after graduation. I would hope they take from me what they need to prosper in society.
My teaching philosophy is not about English, composition, or Language Arts, it can't be. My teaching philosophy is about the students and their needs. Content will always be present, and I will teach them to be literate in all areas I can; but these kids are my future and my daughter's future, how do I prepare them to observe, participate, and lead so we all benefit?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Lindemann doesn't know Literature!
Okay, my biggest problem with Erika Lindemann is her idea of losing literature in a composition classroom. I understand her take on the composition classroom and that it is strictly to teach composition; but seriously, studnets need content in order to write. Literature offers a great springboard for composition; and if the teacher knows how to incorporate the literature into the curriculum without turning the classroom into a literature course, then why not use all forms of literature in a composition classroom?
Lindemann seems to go against what the other theorists believe. She wants a comp. class to be only a comp. class. Nevermind the social learning that Bruffe discusses, or the arguing Graff urges, the collaboration encouraged by Lunsford, and the cultural, personal, and academic discourses Bizzell wants in a classroom; no, no, no, only composition. That is what I got from Lindemann. Writing is difficult, and good writing is almost impossible according to her. I think she has it backwards. If a teacher uses fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc. in a composition classroom then teaches the students how to synthesize and analyze (how to think) then writing is meaningful. Outside of an English class students are going to need to know how to synthesize and analyze in any profession. It is the thinking and the skill that is required to write well.
I can teach Hamlet or Skinner's Walden Two to my composition students and teach them how to write in various genres using the literature. Look to the literature as a means for teaching social interaction, historical significance so our students are not culturally illiterate, and analysis of situation. I cannot embrace Ms. Lindemann and her theory about axing literature in a composition classroom. If that is the case, then let us go back to focusing solely on grammar, vocabulary, conventions and forget about how literature can assist in these areas in a composition classroom. I am sorry, but reading and speaking improve writing; and it is the teacher's responsibility to understand how to use literature to teach composition responsibly. Later Lindemann!
Lindemann seems to go against what the other theorists believe. She wants a comp. class to be only a comp. class. Nevermind the social learning that Bruffe discusses, or the arguing Graff urges, the collaboration encouraged by Lunsford, and the cultural, personal, and academic discourses Bizzell wants in a classroom; no, no, no, only composition. That is what I got from Lindemann. Writing is difficult, and good writing is almost impossible according to her. I think she has it backwards. If a teacher uses fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc. in a composition classroom then teaches the students how to synthesize and analyze (how to think) then writing is meaningful. Outside of an English class students are going to need to know how to synthesize and analyze in any profession. It is the thinking and the skill that is required to write well.
I can teach Hamlet or Skinner's Walden Two to my composition students and teach them how to write in various genres using the literature. Look to the literature as a means for teaching social interaction, historical significance so our students are not culturally illiterate, and analysis of situation. I cannot embrace Ms. Lindemann and her theory about axing literature in a composition classroom. If that is the case, then let us go back to focusing solely on grammar, vocabulary, conventions and forget about how literature can assist in these areas in a composition classroom. I am sorry, but reading and speaking improve writing; and it is the teacher's responsibility to understand how to use literature to teach composition responsibly. Later Lindemann!
Technology and Selfe
Cynthia Selfe obviously loves technology. She wants teachers and students alike to use it in the classroom. And I think she is absolutely right. We as educators must become literate in technology; and when we begin to refuse the technology, then it is time to retire or find a new job. Not only are we trying to prepare our students for a global society, as Yancey hopes, we are preparing ourselves for a paradigm shift in education. If we do not keep up with the current trends in our students' world, then we will not advance and will continue harming students' and their education. This is not your grandma's or mom's education any longer.
However, Selfe does not want teachers to teach students to be 'technology indulgers'. There has to be a happy medium; everything in moderation, right? Students need to know how to use academic and professional technology in order to be successful. They know how to play their xbox and Wii gaming systems (so do I, love it!), bypass filters on school computers (as do I ), and use their cell phones to the maximum capacity (the kids had to teach me that one). But what if they used all of their computer knowledge for good as well? I was surprised that I knew what twitter and tweet meant before they did. I also am utilizing my classroom web page for blogging, message boarding, on-line quizzes, homework drops, etc. so my students will have a heads-up in college over their peers. At least that is what I hope.
I understand that not all students have a personal computer, but I do not see that as something that can hinder a student's technological advancement in the classroom and world of academia. A lot of my students do not have computers at home, but we have seven libraries with several computer labs they have access to. I do not accept "I don't have a computer at home" or "my printer isn't working" as excuses any more; email me the work, hotmail will set up a free account for anyone, and I will help you with any problems you may encounter. This is where I disagree with Selfe. As an English teacher who uses technology quite regularly in my classroom, I do not see the technology as a means of oppression; it is definitely a means of liberation for anyone at any age. Technology does not discriminate; get with the times or fall behind.
However, Selfe does not want teachers to teach students to be 'technology indulgers'. There has to be a happy medium; everything in moderation, right? Students need to know how to use academic and professional technology in order to be successful. They know how to play their xbox and Wii gaming systems (so do I, love it!), bypass filters on school computers (as do I ), and use their cell phones to the maximum capacity (the kids had to teach me that one). But what if they used all of their computer knowledge for good as well? I was surprised that I knew what twitter and tweet meant before they did. I also am utilizing my classroom web page for blogging, message boarding, on-line quizzes, homework drops, etc. so my students will have a heads-up in college over their peers. At least that is what I hope.
I understand that not all students have a personal computer, but I do not see that as something that can hinder a student's technological advancement in the classroom and world of academia. A lot of my students do not have computers at home, but we have seven libraries with several computer labs they have access to. I do not accept "I don't have a computer at home" or "my printer isn't working" as excuses any more; email me the work, hotmail will set up a free account for anyone, and I will help you with any problems you may encounter. This is where I disagree with Selfe. As an English teacher who uses technology quite regularly in my classroom, I do not see the technology as a means of oppression; it is definitely a means of liberation for anyone at any age. Technology does not discriminate; get with the times or fall behind.
Cool, Yancey and Turner talked to each other!
I think it is fantastic that Rhonda had the opportunity to actually speak with the theorist she was presenting. What a great opportunity to combine what has been published and compare it to what is actually said by the person researched. KUDOS to you, Rhonda!
It seems to me that the more modern theorists are realizing that teaching and learning are changing and so must the classroom environment. Yancey says she is student-centered and knows that teachers have a 'lasing effect on our students" (Turner). Of course we do, depending on what level we teach, we see, talk, and spend more time with the kids in our classroom than they do with their parents (that's scary). We, as a teaching community, have a responsibility to nurture our students into productive and prosperous citizens once they leave our care. It takes a village to raise a child, right? No longer can teachers teach in the "vacuum" we so constantly refer to. Reading and writing are very important skills because the foster communication; but teachers can no longer be 'all about me and my knowledge', they need to be open to the knowledge and individuality of their students. That is what Yancey proposes.
From what I gather about Yancey, she wants teachers to hold themselves more accountable in the classroom. Her major questions seem to center around the student and their future productivity in society. The word literacy creeps up again and again. Literacy is no longer knowing how to read and write, but how to communicate. Rhonda said that Yancey believes that "creating writing publics creates the development of citizens...civic literacy is global." How are our students going to compete globally if we do not prepare them for a global society? Yancey obviously wants to give students the tools necessary for global competition and global success.
It seems to me that the more modern theorists are realizing that teaching and learning are changing and so must the classroom environment. Yancey says she is student-centered and knows that teachers have a 'lasing effect on our students" (Turner). Of course we do, depending on what level we teach, we see, talk, and spend more time with the kids in our classroom than they do with their parents (that's scary). We, as a teaching community, have a responsibility to nurture our students into productive and prosperous citizens once they leave our care. It takes a village to raise a child, right? No longer can teachers teach in the "vacuum" we so constantly refer to. Reading and writing are very important skills because the foster communication; but teachers can no longer be 'all about me and my knowledge', they need to be open to the knowledge and individuality of their students. That is what Yancey proposes.
From what I gather about Yancey, she wants teachers to hold themselves more accountable in the classroom. Her major questions seem to center around the student and their future productivity in society. The word literacy creeps up again and again. Literacy is no longer knowing how to read and write, but how to communicate. Rhonda said that Yancey believes that "creating writing publics creates the development of citizens...civic literacy is global." How are our students going to compete globally if we do not prepare them for a global society? Yancey obviously wants to give students the tools necessary for global competition and global success.
Bruffee and Collaborative Learning
Thomas' presentation on Kenneth Bruffee was interesting and insightful, as have been the other presentations on the previous theorists we have studied and read. As far as I can see, these theorists are only reinventing the wheel. They are influenced by previous theorists, or those they have studied with or under. That seems to be the common theme found through Bruffee; learning is a social activity, not an individual or personal process. Everyone learns something from someone else; that's it, end of story.
A lot of what Bruffee says makes sense, especially for a classroom setting. Peer tutoring enables students to join a social conversation and learn how to socialize in a particular discourse community. In groups, students (people for that matter) learn through a collaborative effort to create and maintain knowledge. As human beings this is what we do on a daily, hourly, and minute by minute basis. However, peer tutoring is what I have a problem with. I believe the teacher/instructor/facilitator must set very specific norms for the groups. I hate peer tutoring and total collaboration (Ms. Lunsford). But I am willing to accept that it can be beneficial for students to communicate with their peers in order to grasp a concept in any discipline taught. Which leads to Bruffee's theory that writing is the center of any curriculum.
This sounds a lot like Burns in the sense that all teachers are Language Arts teachers - we all teach reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. What teacher in what content does not do that? Bruffee also believes that the teacher's role is to engage students in various conversations and model several social communities or discourses in the classroom while the student learns to think. Can we say Bizzell? Seriously, none of this is new, only reused or revamped. I know that I will eventually come up with my own theory and it will be based on what I have learned in this class, in my school/classroom, from my students, my colleagues, and peers. I will not totally agree with or totally disagree with any one theorist, professor, colleague, or peer I may encounter throughout this endeavor; but I will take from each what I believe is useful and necessary to create the proper composition classroom for students to learn what they need in order to be successful at any level.
A lot of what Bruffee says makes sense, especially for a classroom setting. Peer tutoring enables students to join a social conversation and learn how to socialize in a particular discourse community. In groups, students (people for that matter) learn through a collaborative effort to create and maintain knowledge. As human beings this is what we do on a daily, hourly, and minute by minute basis. However, peer tutoring is what I have a problem with. I believe the teacher/instructor/facilitator must set very specific norms for the groups. I hate peer tutoring and total collaboration (Ms. Lunsford). But I am willing to accept that it can be beneficial for students to communicate with their peers in order to grasp a concept in any discipline taught. Which leads to Bruffee's theory that writing is the center of any curriculum.
This sounds a lot like Burns in the sense that all teachers are Language Arts teachers - we all teach reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. What teacher in what content does not do that? Bruffee also believes that the teacher's role is to engage students in various conversations and model several social communities or discourses in the classroom while the student learns to think. Can we say Bizzell? Seriously, none of this is new, only reused or revamped. I know that I will eventually come up with my own theory and it will be based on what I have learned in this class, in my school/classroom, from my students, my colleagues, and peers. I will not totally agree with or totally disagree with any one theorist, professor, colleague, or peer I may encounter throughout this endeavor; but I will take from each what I believe is useful and necessary to create the proper composition classroom for students to learn what they need in order to be successful at any level.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I Will Be Brief, Clear, and Sincere...
Nic did an excellent job presenting Richard Lanham. I must say that as an educator I like what Lanham had to say about writing. He seems to say that students need to write in a way that is clear for the readers to understand the meaning and message. We as educators need to accept the false assumption Lanham addresses and move teaching composition into the right direction - be brief, clear, and sincere.
Having been an expert witness and literary consultant, Lanham would know a lot about being brief and clear. In a courtroom, one must get to the point. This leads to his paramedic method of revision. If a writer follows the steps he offers, then the writing will become brief and clearer when completed. Get past the froo-froo and get to the meat. I really like that. I know how my students write; and when they use the electronic thesarus, I am well aware of that fact. They are writing a lot of words but really saying nothing.
I agree with Lanham when he says schools need to take a more democratic approach to learning. He seems to coincide with Bartholomae in this sense. Bartholomae wants students to know what the academic writing is and then move against the culutural commonplaces that determine how students write. What Lanham says about technology and the media format being the more democratic approach to learning is key. Students now are very sef-centered and want everything instantaneously; they are the 'economy of attention', as Lanham states, fighting for attention to the me. Technology urges this attitude, especially the world-wide web. If this attitude could be harnessed in a way that is beneficial for all students, then most students would be well seen, heard and read - this is what they need in order to be digitally literate.
I don't think, however, that style is more important than substance. Style should come later. Here Graff peeks his head into the discussion. Students must know the conflict or the topic in order to write cohesively. Style and voice come later.
Richard Lanham is definitely one theorist whom has very valid points and ideas. Mixed with the other ideas and theories, his could work very well.
Having been an expert witness and literary consultant, Lanham would know a lot about being brief and clear. In a courtroom, one must get to the point. This leads to his paramedic method of revision. If a writer follows the steps he offers, then the writing will become brief and clearer when completed. Get past the froo-froo and get to the meat. I really like that. I know how my students write; and when they use the electronic thesarus, I am well aware of that fact. They are writing a lot of words but really saying nothing.
I agree with Lanham when he says schools need to take a more democratic approach to learning. He seems to coincide with Bartholomae in this sense. Bartholomae wants students to know what the academic writing is and then move against the culutural commonplaces that determine how students write. What Lanham says about technology and the media format being the more democratic approach to learning is key. Students now are very sef-centered and want everything instantaneously; they are the 'economy of attention', as Lanham states, fighting for attention to the me. Technology urges this attitude, especially the world-wide web. If this attitude could be harnessed in a way that is beneficial for all students, then most students would be well seen, heard and read - this is what they need in order to be digitally literate.
I don't think, however, that style is more important than substance. Style should come later. Here Graff peeks his head into the discussion. Students must know the conflict or the topic in order to write cohesively. Style and voice come later.
Richard Lanham is definitely one theorist whom has very valid points and ideas. Mixed with the other ideas and theories, his could work very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
