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.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Dr. Hugh Burns in Class
I must say I really enjoyed listening to Dr. Hugh Burns in class. It is very rare to listen to the people we study, so this was a very unique experience. Dr. Burns had many interesting things to share with us concerning writing, but what I really liked was the whole language arts realm. As a teacher of language arts, it has become my responsibility to teach reading, writing, speaking, and listening; but I should not be the only one held accountable for that in my building (nor should the fellow members of my department).
Every teacher is a teacher of the language arts because we all use speaking, listening, writing, and reading skills in all content areas. If more secondary teachers realized that, our students would be 'rockstars' in their specific discourse communities upon graduation.
I also liked the stories he shared about technology. The evolution was amazing; and what was even more amazing, he was a part of it. I have been thinking a lot about how to properly integrate technology into my classroom, and Dr. Burns seemed to clear some strategies for me. However, he did bring to the realization that we are being watched as well as watching using technology.
Burns only reinforced the audience and purpose model. What are we writing and for whom? That is the ultimate question that needs to be answered, along with how do we teach this to our students and have them realize the importance of the final answers? I think it was very beneficial to hear Dr. Burns speak to us, and I think Klayton will be able to shed a little more light on Burns' philosophies.
Every teacher is a teacher of the language arts because we all use speaking, listening, writing, and reading skills in all content areas. If more secondary teachers realized that, our students would be 'rockstars' in their specific discourse communities upon graduation.
I also liked the stories he shared about technology. The evolution was amazing; and what was even more amazing, he was a part of it. I have been thinking a lot about how to properly integrate technology into my classroom, and Dr. Burns seemed to clear some strategies for me. However, he did bring to the realization that we are being watched as well as watching using technology.
Burns only reinforced the audience and purpose model. What are we writing and for whom? That is the ultimate question that needs to be answered, along with how do we teach this to our students and have them realize the importance of the final answers? I think it was very beneficial to hear Dr. Burns speak to us, and I think Klayton will be able to shed a little more light on Burns' philosophies.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Peer Review: More of a headache or more of a help?
In a perfect world, in a perfect school district, in a perfect classroom...you get the idea, peer review would be fantastic. I am not a proponent of peer editing, reviewing, revising, or cooperative groups in the classroom. I feel this way for many reasons. Besides the obvious of keeping the kids on task and classroom management, time is definitely an issue. When we are held accountable for state assessments that determine our accreditation status, I'm sorry peer review is not the method I want to use in student writing. But enough of my rant and rave, I need to comment on the literature.
"Peer Review from the Students' Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid" gives us an insight into what peer review can possibly do for students. The article lost me once in got into percentages and figures, but I gathered that both instructor and student saw some need for peer review and no need for peer review past freshman year. I think the study was skewed to begin with because the university did not reflect a population found at most state colleges and universities. So therefore, I did not find this accurate or believable in the least.
However, based on the information, peer review is somewhat beneficial. There are many conflicts, though, found in peer review. Are the students the ones who are responsible for their peers' education? Peer editing is great when the students know what to look for; but as the article states students are only looking at what they know, grammar/conventions. If students need to be taught to think, then how on earth can they teach each other how to write? Many students will say, much like those in the study, that peer review is not beneficial and causes the writing to decline in style and structure.
As a teacher, in public education at the secondary level, I do not have the desired and needed time to teach my students how to peer review. I need to teach them how to think, write, and read. How are they going to teach each other? On the flip side, cooperative grouping is very beneficial to solving problems. This method may work if the student writing sample is not from the same class. Students do need to see models of good and bad writing in order to understand which is which and why. Once guided practice in complete, then students can use cooperative groups to determine what makes the writing good and what makes it bad. Then independent practice can take place and possibly peer review. I myself have personally used this method of cooperative learning.
I must say, though, the audience the student is writing for is never his or her peers, it is his or her instructor who ultimately gives the grade. I agree with the article that much has to be done by both teacher and student in order for true peer editing, revising and reviewing to take place.
"Peer Review from the Students' Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid" gives us an insight into what peer review can possibly do for students. The article lost me once in got into percentages and figures, but I gathered that both instructor and student saw some need for peer review and no need for peer review past freshman year. I think the study was skewed to begin with because the university did not reflect a population found at most state colleges and universities. So therefore, I did not find this accurate or believable in the least.
However, based on the information, peer review is somewhat beneficial. There are many conflicts, though, found in peer review. Are the students the ones who are responsible for their peers' education? Peer editing is great when the students know what to look for; but as the article states students are only looking at what they know, grammar/conventions. If students need to be taught to think, then how on earth can they teach each other how to write? Many students will say, much like those in the study, that peer review is not beneficial and causes the writing to decline in style and structure.
As a teacher, in public education at the secondary level, I do not have the desired and needed time to teach my students how to peer review. I need to teach them how to think, write, and read. How are they going to teach each other? On the flip side, cooperative grouping is very beneficial to solving problems. This method may work if the student writing sample is not from the same class. Students do need to see models of good and bad writing in order to understand which is which and why. Once guided practice in complete, then students can use cooperative groups to determine what makes the writing good and what makes it bad. Then independent practice can take place and possibly peer review. I myself have personally used this method of cooperative learning.
I must say, though, the audience the student is writing for is never his or her peers, it is his or her instructor who ultimately gives the grade. I agree with the article that much has to be done by both teacher and student in order for true peer editing, revising and reviewing to take place.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Back to the Basics. Damn Technology!
Peter Kratzke's article "Recopying to Revise: Composition in an Old Key" struck a nerve with me. He definitely goes old-school in this article. I remember learning by recopying and thus learning. I would have to agree with him on most of his major points.
Writing is a process that produces a final product; I think we can all agree with that. However, Kratzke basically says that students no longer think for themselves when they write. They heavily rely on the computer/Internet for structure and guidance. His reference to National Assessments such as the SAT and GRE prove the decline in student thinking. Scores have declined over the past several years because students no longer think about what they are reading. The instant gratification is not available to them when they are taking the exams. A lot can be blamed for the decline in many assessments nationwide, but a solution must be found. Our educational structure has changed drastically over the past one hundred years, but one thing remains - poor student writing performance.
I think Kratzke fits well with Bizzell and Bartholomae. He says our culture is changing at a rapid rate and students are trying to multitask but multitasking is not so good. Our democratic approach to education is what possibly hurts our national average and standing. Every American - legal or not - is entitled to a free education. Therefore, teachers need to be aware of that and adjust to the changes created by society. How do we teach students who come from a very apathetic world of video games and electronic gadgets and go old-school writing/teaching with them? It sounds almost impossible, but Kratzke does formulate some solutions
The solutions that Kratzke discuss are very practical and basic. It is ingenious to go back to the basics and teach students the thinking process after the writing process. I love the idea of recopying what they have written. I constantly tell my students to read what they wrote out loud so they can hear what they sound like and if it is understandable; but rewriting, it never occurred to me because it is too simplistic. The computer and its grammar check, thesaurus, and spell check have caused me to be lazy because of the instant gratification aspect. So if I am to practice what I preach, I better start practicing.
I think Kratzke ultimately wants us to find a happy balance between the technology and the brain. Much like Bizzell, students must first learn to think before they can communicate their thoughts. Basic steps, baby steps perhaps, seem to be a possible solution to our robotic writing problem. Give them a fish, they eat for a day; teach them to fish, they eat for a lifetime.
Writing is a process that produces a final product; I think we can all agree with that. However, Kratzke basically says that students no longer think for themselves when they write. They heavily rely on the computer/Internet for structure and guidance. His reference to National Assessments such as the SAT and GRE prove the decline in student thinking. Scores have declined over the past several years because students no longer think about what they are reading. The instant gratification is not available to them when they are taking the exams. A lot can be blamed for the decline in many assessments nationwide, but a solution must be found. Our educational structure has changed drastically over the past one hundred years, but one thing remains - poor student writing performance.
I think Kratzke fits well with Bizzell and Bartholomae. He says our culture is changing at a rapid rate and students are trying to multitask but multitasking is not so good. Our democratic approach to education is what possibly hurts our national average and standing. Every American - legal or not - is entitled to a free education. Therefore, teachers need to be aware of that and adjust to the changes created by society. How do we teach students who come from a very apathetic world of video games and electronic gadgets and go old-school writing/teaching with them? It sounds almost impossible, but Kratzke does formulate some solutions
The solutions that Kratzke discuss are very practical and basic. It is ingenious to go back to the basics and teach students the thinking process after the writing process. I love the idea of recopying what they have written. I constantly tell my students to read what they wrote out loud so they can hear what they sound like and if it is understandable; but rewriting, it never occurred to me because it is too simplistic. The computer and its grammar check, thesaurus, and spell check have caused me to be lazy because of the instant gratification aspect. So if I am to practice what I preach, I better start practicing.
I think Kratzke ultimately wants us to find a happy balance between the technology and the brain. Much like Bizzell, students must first learn to think before they can communicate their thoughts. Basic steps, baby steps perhaps, seem to be a possible solution to our robotic writing problem. Give them a fish, they eat for a day; teach them to fish, they eat for a lifetime.
Bizzy Bizzell
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
