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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.