I must say that what I presented in class was only the tip of an iceberg. Bizzell has written so much and I only had a piece of what she believes. I must say though, I do agree that teachers in the 21st century need to be more aware of their students and surroundings. We are stuck in the 1960's as far as education is concerned, and Bizzell seems to recognize that.
Dr. Souder asked if a teacher could truly be neutral in the classroom. After much reflection on that question, of course not. I, myself, am not neutral; I pick the literature, the lesson, and topic for discussion and then guide the students into an intellectual experience. However, I think what Bizzell was trying to say was that the teacher needs to put aside his or her own bias and recognize the students' backgrounds. A teacher should not impose his or her middle-class values onto his or her students, but should recognize the needs of the individuals in the class. Once the students feel safe and know that the teacher is aware of what is important to them, then learning will take place. The teacher must make what is taught in the classroom relevant to the real world, the students' world.
The only way a teacher can be neutral is if he or she always presents both sides of the argument. Much like Graff discusses, teach the kids the conflict and how to discuss the conflict; but Bizzell says that the conflict should be what is important to the students at the time. If a teacher understands his or her students' native discourse community, then the teacher can tie any lesson into that child's community. This is going to take a lot of work on the teachers behalf, but if the teacher takes the time and tries to teach holistically, then students will learn no matter the culture, religion, sex, socioeconomic situation, etc. In theory, I think it is an excellent idea. Students need to be a part of their learning experience.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Too Much Arguing!
Scott presented Gerald Graff and his theory of 'teaching the conflicts'. I think Graff is an interesting individual. Scott says he focuses on argument and how everything can turn into an argument. Students need to know both sides of an argument in order to properly present the argument to the audience. This sounds a lot like Bartholomae - be skeptical, do not trust. I think it is good to question and argue, but there has to be some solution sometime. I don't believe that all writing should be centered around 'argumentation'.
"Reduction is a good thing." Okay, I agree. Do you understand what you are saying or arguing? That is important for students to recognize. Regurgitation is such a disgusting thing. However, I do not think the shortest route possible is always the best. For example, students need to explain what they research and read. Sometimes that is a very lengthy paper and process. They can understand the topic by evaluating and reflecting what they read. An internal dialogue would most certainly help in this case (Mr. Murray), and understanding the discourse from which the topic comes (Ms. Bizzell) will also assist in the argument. So I tend to disagree that reduction is absolutely a good thing. But when we teach argument/persuasion and synthesis, we want students to know both sides of the argument so they are properly armed and prepared for any confrontation or questions.
Teaching students how to read and write 'the conflicts' is important, but there is so much more to writing than just arguing. Students need to know many aspects to the writing process and product; to narrow it down to just one type of mode/genre is unfair to the students. To constantly argue will constantly create conflict leading to more of the same. When does it end so a product and solution can finally happen - hmmm... sounds like public education.
"Reduction is a good thing." Okay, I agree. Do you understand what you are saying or arguing? That is important for students to recognize. Regurgitation is such a disgusting thing. However, I do not think the shortest route possible is always the best. For example, students need to explain what they research and read. Sometimes that is a very lengthy paper and process. They can understand the topic by evaluating and reflecting what they read. An internal dialogue would most certainly help in this case (Mr. Murray), and understanding the discourse from which the topic comes (Ms. Bizzell) will also assist in the argument. So I tend to disagree that reduction is absolutely a good thing. But when we teach argument/persuasion and synthesis, we want students to know both sides of the argument so they are properly armed and prepared for any confrontation or questions.
Teaching students how to read and write 'the conflicts' is important, but there is so much more to writing than just arguing. Students need to know many aspects to the writing process and product; to narrow it down to just one type of mode/genre is unfair to the students. To constantly argue will constantly create conflict leading to more of the same. When does it end so a product and solution can finally happen - hmmm... sounds like public education.
And the fight goes on and on and on...
If I had to determine whose side I fell on, I would have to say that the majority of my beliefs as a teacher lean toward David Bartholomae. However, I do think Elbow has some very good theories as well; so I believe both. Some may say that is a cop out, but to be an effective teacher of writing, you must be open to many theories and take from each what will be best for the students.
I agree with Bartholomae when he says that students need to establish power over text first and then add the voice at the end of the writing process. They do need to understand the argument they are presenting in their writing before they can persuade an audience; the synthesis process is pertinent. Once the argument is complete, then it is better understood by all. I also like that he sees the teacher as a manager, in control and in charge. Students need to have that kind of structure in the classroom, especially in writing. The instructor is ultimately the one who is responsible for the class. But I do not like that he sees students within the cultural context. Here is where I agree with Elbow. Students are individuals and need to be comfortable with the writing before they can produce anything worth while. I tend to lean more toward the academic writing than the personal writing because having the foundation in academic writing will allow students to become successful no matter what they do post graduation. The skills are stressed instead of the content.
Bartholomae seems to be teaching students to adapt to the situation, whether it be an academic , social, or personal discourse community. That sounds somewhat like Bizzell, but where she stresses instructor adaptability, Bartholomae emphasizes student adaptability. I must agree that writing should be academic and critical rather than personal. I guess the question is what do students need in order to be successful? Maybe start with personal and expressive writing so students can become comfortable with writing, like Elbow suggests, then move to academic and critical writing which will lead to critical thinking which in turn is needed in any professional setting. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Great presentation Emily - KUDOS!
I agree with Bartholomae when he says that students need to establish power over text first and then add the voice at the end of the writing process. They do need to understand the argument they are presenting in their writing before they can persuade an audience; the synthesis process is pertinent. Once the argument is complete, then it is better understood by all. I also like that he sees the teacher as a manager, in control and in charge. Students need to have that kind of structure in the classroom, especially in writing. The instructor is ultimately the one who is responsible for the class. But I do not like that he sees students within the cultural context. Here is where I agree with Elbow. Students are individuals and need to be comfortable with the writing before they can produce anything worth while. I tend to lean more toward the academic writing than the personal writing because having the foundation in academic writing will allow students to become successful no matter what they do post graduation. The skills are stressed instead of the content.
Bartholomae seems to be teaching students to adapt to the situation, whether it be an academic , social, or personal discourse community. That sounds somewhat like Bizzell, but where she stresses instructor adaptability, Bartholomae emphasizes student adaptability. I must agree that writing should be academic and critical rather than personal. I guess the question is what do students need in order to be successful? Maybe start with personal and expressive writing so students can become comfortable with writing, like Elbow suggests, then move to academic and critical writing which will lead to critical thinking which in turn is needed in any professional setting. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Great presentation Emily - KUDOS!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
To Collaborate, or Not To Collaborate... That is the question.
I must say I am not a fan of collaboration, but I am going to contradict myself here (since contradiction seems to be a common theme so far). Different types of collaboration are important because collaboration allows for growth. However, collaboration with writing...well, I don't know. Authorship always is a driving force behind collaboration. I understand that Lunsford likes the idea to share her ideas and create with others; but I think that kind of writing all of the time causes the author to lose his or her identity.
I do see a similarity to Murray, though, after reading Nancy's blog. She must sit on the couch to think about the problem or idea she is working out as an individual author. The internal dialogue, hmmm? That kind of reflection is necessary for growth as well. I guess there is just a time and a place for collaboration and individuality. Each is just as important as the other and of course everything in moderation.
What Lunsford did for education cannot be measured. If it were not for her drive to create a better process for women and minorities, in what kind of state would our education be? As a minority and female, I am grateful for people like Lunsford.
I do see a similarity to Murray, though, after reading Nancy's blog. She must sit on the couch to think about the problem or idea she is working out as an individual author. The internal dialogue, hmmm? That kind of reflection is necessary for growth as well. I guess there is just a time and a place for collaboration and individuality. Each is just as important as the other and of course everything in moderation.
What Lunsford did for education cannot be measured. If it were not for her drive to create a better process for women and minorities, in what kind of state would our education be? As a minority and female, I am grateful for people like Lunsford.
Vision Here, Vision There, Vision Everywhere!
Tony did a very good job in presenting Donald Murray's theory of writing. As a student and a teacher I have encountered many types of writing processes, and I must say Mr. Murray's process makes sense. The idea of the pre-vision, vision, and re-vision is a process that most students unconsciously complete. The idea of writing from an internal dialogue is classic. We all carry on a conversation with ourselves at one point or another. That allows us to think, listen and finally create what we want to say. Unlike Ong, this is not a spontaneous process. Our internal language/dialogue allows us to foster our ideas so they will make sense to our audience.
An author, compositionist, writer must follow some sort of process in order to make sense of his or her ideas. Looking at the topic, situation, idea, genre, etc. from different perspectives only gives the author the advantage. Product is always the outcome of any process, whether it be writing, speaking, or pottery. To say that one process is the right or correct process would be arrogant. Contradictions will always exist to processes because the process is constantly changing and evolving.
And for you Tony ... MODISTA!
An author, compositionist, writer must follow some sort of process in order to make sense of his or her ideas. Looking at the topic, situation, idea, genre, etc. from different perspectives only gives the author the advantage. Product is always the outcome of any process, whether it be writing, speaking, or pottery. To say that one process is the right or correct process would be arrogant. Contradictions will always exist to processes because the process is constantly changing and evolving.
And for you Tony ... MODISTA!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Ong and Orality
It is amazing how we forget our earliest form of communication - the spoken language. Eric did a really nice job reminding us of that basic form of communication through his presentation about Walter Ong. Literacy can changewhen it is spoken; the only time it is permanent is when it is printed in text. Ong gives us the revelation that literacy and orality are cyclical. Yet, I don't think that is anything new.
When we write we have the opportunity to reflect and revise. Ong states that with the oral tradition, one can be spontaneous and spontenaity is a good thing. I don't think, however, the secondary orality and the interfaces of the word are changing the way we communicate. The spoken word allows for people to interact. The written and printed word both allow people to record, and the electronic word allows for people to instantly interact and record. I think Ong is correct when he states that the Western culture is moving and shifting. Our multiforms of communication are allowing us to rethink how we communicate with one another.
When we write we have the opportunity to reflect and revise. Ong states that with the oral tradition, one can be spontaneous and spontenaity is a good thing. I don't think, however, the secondary orality and the interfaces of the word are changing the way we communicate. The spoken word allows for people to interact. The written and printed word both allow people to record, and the electronic word allows for people to instantly interact and record. I think Ong is correct when he states that the Western culture is moving and shifting. Our multiforms of communication are allowing us to rethink how we communicate with one another.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Our Creative Inspiration, Peter Elbow
Peter, Peter, Peter Elbow. Tell me, sir, what do you know? Peter Elbow seems to know much about composition. Listening to his interview on youtube offered a great insight to the development of a writer. His first experience with writing was very negative, as is probably the case with many other young writers in school. Elbow argues that writing is not formulaic, it is a creative process. Again, there is the word process.
Many teachers believe that writing is the five paragraph essay with each sentence containing at least five sentences, and few grammatical errors; in other words perfection. Teachers have the ultimate power to influence a young mind and if that power is not recognized the result is Peter Elbow and his writing theory. The formal writing process (brainstorm, draft, revise, edit, publish) does not work for all writers; however, for the most basic writers this may be helpful. Much like Kinneavy, Elbow seems to contradict himself as well. He states there is now right way to develop a composition - one can free write, or outline, or brainstorm whatever their little hearts desire. But if he is the reason we have formalized state testing, then he does believe in organization and specific planning on a students behalf - responsibility and accountability.
How does Elbow creep into the composition classroom today and how does he reflect Kinneavy? Well, I believe that his theory of composition is not based on audience but on self. He refers to writing as a creative process, and that's fine and dandy; but what about using that process when you have to write a formal paper. Formal/Formulaic - coincidence? There are two definite types of writing - creative and expository. A student must be able to achieve both forms of writing. Elbow allows the creative expressionist to advance and prosper, but the organized writer needs a formula to follow to advance and prosper. I think this is where Elbow and Kinneavy can compliment each other. The approach to writing by the compositionist is a personal choice, however, the final outcome will be the same. Again process vs. product. I don't think it is one or the other and that is where the conflict is occurring. You must find a process to finish the product, whether it is formal or creative.
Elbow's personal experience with writing allows him to connect with those who have had the same experience, but again everyone in unique in style and we can all learn from each other. So dear Peter Elbow, as Tony would say "Won't you be my neighbor?"
Many teachers believe that writing is the five paragraph essay with each sentence containing at least five sentences, and few grammatical errors; in other words perfection. Teachers have the ultimate power to influence a young mind and if that power is not recognized the result is Peter Elbow and his writing theory. The formal writing process (brainstorm, draft, revise, edit, publish) does not work for all writers; however, for the most basic writers this may be helpful. Much like Kinneavy, Elbow seems to contradict himself as well. He states there is now right way to develop a composition - one can free write, or outline, or brainstorm whatever their little hearts desire. But if he is the reason we have formalized state testing, then he does believe in organization and specific planning on a students behalf - responsibility and accountability.
How does Elbow creep into the composition classroom today and how does he reflect Kinneavy? Well, I believe that his theory of composition is not based on audience but on self. He refers to writing as a creative process, and that's fine and dandy; but what about using that process when you have to write a formal paper. Formal/Formulaic - coincidence? There are two definite types of writing - creative and expository. A student must be able to achieve both forms of writing. Elbow allows the creative expressionist to advance and prosper, but the organized writer needs a formula to follow to advance and prosper. I think this is where Elbow and Kinneavy can compliment each other. The approach to writing by the compositionist is a personal choice, however, the final outcome will be the same. Again process vs. product. I don't think it is one or the other and that is where the conflict is occurring. You must find a process to finish the product, whether it is formal or creative.
Elbow's personal experience with writing allows him to connect with those who have had the same experience, but again everyone in unique in style and we can all learn from each other. So dear Peter Elbow, as Tony would say "Won't you be my neighbor?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
