Kinneavy and His Contradictions

Composition and rhetoric. What do we really do with it? It is interesting to see how others, who are published and acclaimed, view composition. I have never really formally studied composition or the theory of (unless you count professional development days). However, I found that what Klayton presented about Kinneavy made me realize what I have been taught as a student and as a teacher concerning composition isn't anything new.

Having the privilege to listen to Tom Romano, I definitely could make the connections to Kinneavy and his theory of writing. People write and create for a variety of audiences and hope to make some impact or have some influence on the audience they are trying to reach. Kinneavy separates writing into genres hoping to reach a wider audience which makes sense. Not only is his theory of writing trying to reach an audience, but it is trying to influence writers as well. What he presents is multi-genre writing and writing across the curriculum. This is a very important skill because we, as individuals, need to know how to communicate in any given situation. Kinneavy breaks the genres down into specific categories, and each genre has a particular purpose. However, those purposes and genres overlap, thus, creating cross-curricular writing.

Trying to wrap my brain around what Klayton presented was difficult until I started to look at the genres and purposes as a teacher. I cannot force my students to write a particular way just like I cannot make them learn a particular way. Some are auditory learners, visual learners and kinesthetic learners. Kinneavy seems to recognize this and his theory individualizes writing for the writer.

We write for a purpose; we write for an audience. We share our writing with others and we sometimes keep it private. Even though Kinneavy may be full of contradictions (according to Klayton), his theory of writing makes sense because it is so full of contradictions. Writers have their own style of composition and writing that may be contradictory, but isn't that what makes writing unique? I don't think it is the product, but it is the process; and that seems contradictory to Kinneavy, yet fits right in with his theory as well.

Biotechnology and Composition, for real?

Since when did composition become so sci-fi? This article, "The not-so-distant future: Composition studies in the culture of biotechnology", by Michelle Sidler seemed so far fetched; however, the further I read, the more I began to think about the future of education and its possible paths. Technology is definitely impacting the classroom, from computers to cell phones, to ipods, etc. We as teachers have had to adapt to the changes technology has brought. We have seen computers already become smaller (i.e. the iPhone, blackberries, Internet accesses on a cell phone), but the idea that biology will no longer be sacred is a scary idea.

Teachers prove to still be an informational source to students in the classroom. I don't think teachers can be replaced 100% by technology, but I do agree that we will need to adapt to the changing needs our society and culture will create. As composition teachers we will need to learn a new language to prepare our students for a productive, lucrative and successful future if we go in the direction Sidler predicts. Will literature we teach change, the style of writing transform, and the language we speak mutate? Probably, according to Sidler. In section four: a brief introduction to the genome, the construction of a genome is compared to the chapters of a book; that is a very interesting comparison. Moving from one-dimensional to multi-dimensional writing is what science advancement is causing our culture to do. How are we going to adapt in a composition classroom? Do we then start to transform our teaching to fit the society? Today we are no longer changing students into what we want them to be, but we are changing society to fit what they want it to be: faster, more advanced, and indulging. Why should we continue to teach "The Bard" when it won't be needed in 20 years?

I know that sounds pretty petty, but I believe what Sidler is really saying is we need to adapt, as we have been since the dawn of time, to changes in our world in order to survive. We need to look at teaching students skills such as interpreting, comprehending, synthesizing, and researching texts in order for them to have the ability to decode, dissect, and learn new ideas. Someday writing with pen, paper, and pencil will become archaic and these tools will be seen in a museum; but until then, we need to use them to help create and mold the skills future generations will use when biotechnology and composition become a reality.

The Evils of the Computer

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.