Hull Article
Well, I have experienced a true first in reading the Glynda Hull article; it was the first time that an essay I had to read for class made me angry. haha.. I wasn't angry with the essayist themselves, but rather with the teacher in the study, June. Her comments about Maria struck me as extremely ignorant, rude, and uncalled for. Because Maria did not follow the "proper" rules of classroom conversation, June thought her mentally deficient, incapable of making proper connections between ideas and thoughts. This kind of ignorant thinking leads to a perpetuation of students' falling behind. "Remedial" students, who do not know the discourse of the classroom, fall farther and farther behind because teachers continuously label them. That label, then affects the teacher's interaction with the student and their grading of the student. Teacher's begin not to expect anything of the student, and therefore, don't invest as much time in them. If the student does do well in assignments, many teachers like June attribute the success to the student getting help from an outside source. (What crap!) haha...
Back in the early days of schooling, students who feel behind were labeled social deviants basically. On paper, this has changed. Educators now claim to understand the hardships of students coming for different social and economic backgrounds. However, many teachers, including June, cling to ideas that poor coursework, or poor classroom behavior, is related to some kind of mental default in the student. It is just a destructive mindset. Students pick up on more than we think. They notice when the teacher thinks they are annoying, or when the teacher thinks that they are simply not "trying" hard enough. A poor teacher attitude is very damaging and can cause these students that are in danger in the first place to dislike school and give up hope.
Teachers need to really analyzing their own preconceptions about students. Most teachers, think that they are always fair, but are they? Awareness is the key to changing behavior. I think all perspective teachers should read the Hull article. Unfortunately, however, few people would read it and say, you know, that's me! We tend to think the best about ourselves, and I’m not sure if reading an article is enough to give people a true “aha” moment.
As a pet peeve, I really didn’t like the articles use of the word “remedial.” At my high school, the word was used to describe the lowest level English class, and I always thought that was terrible. Labeling really affects people. Actually, in sociology there is a theory known as the labeling theory, that talks about that phenomenon. Once labeled, people sometimes begin to take on the behavior associated with the label, even if they didn’t exhibit it before, or at least not to an extreme. (IE. You label a kid a problem child, they begin to act out to fit the label.) In a sense, students give up. They here themselves called remedial, and they think of themselves as remedial, with not hope to get “better.” It is bad terminology. It ALSO makes me angry.
I am quite a feisty blogger tonight, I guess.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Building Relationships
Well I read Mel's comments and ideas about building relationships, and I agree that time is a big factor in writing responses to students cover letters. It is also lots of time for students to write these cover letters, but I think the idea is invaluable. Even at our stage it is a good idea to reflect on our writing in that way. I mean the more successful we get as writers (if we are lucky enough) the more we are going to be questioned, asked about what we do on the page. And trust me, I spent two years doing a radio show listening to writers be interviewed about their work, and a lot of well know accomplished writers can only bull shit when it comes to talking about their craft, saying things like "I was moved to write this. It was inspired." Yeah right. It is a process and everyone knows it. Most people just don't think about or document it along the way.
I think it is good to have students write a cover letter, and even better if we can find the time to respond. I think it would be even better if the letter from us was handwritten, but that is just a personal prefrence. It is important for students not only to be able to craft a paper, but to be able to articulate the choices they made. It might even be a good idea for them to read each others or write responses in this way to each others work.
I agree, Mel, that time is a giant factor. But I think the professor in this article had a different vantage point, in that he was dealing with marginal students that had a good chance of taking him again in another class, so it was benefical to him to track their progress and give them more time. I am not sure how we would find the time. Maybe a few written responses on critical papers, the first, the last ect would be more reasonable. It would be something that we have to figure out, just like everything esle we will be figuring out next term.
I think that the major themes in these two articles that we had to read for Monday are once agiain the idea of creating response. The first article traced and labeled responses in the classroom, and it became evident by the end of the article that the best thing to do is let students talk and guide the conversation from there. We have talked about this I know. But I think, at least for me it is becoming something I am thinking about more deeply, something that I can say is a goal I am going to have for next term. Right now everything about teaching is new and confusing, and admitedly the more theory we read, I am not sure if it gives me more confidence or scares me shitless. On that note, one thing is becoming clear as I ponder the classroom dynamic I want. I don't want to sit in silence. I want engaged, responsive students, and hopefully that will translate to their writing. If cover letters help make them more attune, I am willing to try it. And as far as classroom discusion, I hope I lead then follow the students the direction. Right now that seems like the best plan.
I think it is good to have students write a cover letter, and even better if we can find the time to respond. I think it would be even better if the letter from us was handwritten, but that is just a personal prefrence. It is important for students not only to be able to craft a paper, but to be able to articulate the choices they made. It might even be a good idea for them to read each others or write responses in this way to each others work.
I agree, Mel, that time is a giant factor. But I think the professor in this article had a different vantage point, in that he was dealing with marginal students that had a good chance of taking him again in another class, so it was benefical to him to track their progress and give them more time. I am not sure how we would find the time. Maybe a few written responses on critical papers, the first, the last ect would be more reasonable. It would be something that we have to figure out, just like everything esle we will be figuring out next term.
I think that the major themes in these two articles that we had to read for Monday are once agiain the idea of creating response. The first article traced and labeled responses in the classroom, and it became evident by the end of the article that the best thing to do is let students talk and guide the conversation from there. We have talked about this I know. But I think, at least for me it is becoming something I am thinking about more deeply, something that I can say is a goal I am going to have for next term. Right now everything about teaching is new and confusing, and admitedly the more theory we read, I am not sure if it gives me more confidence or scares me shitless. On that note, one thing is becoming clear as I ponder the classroom dynamic I want. I don't want to sit in silence. I want engaged, responsive students, and hopefully that will translate to their writing. If cover letters help make them more attune, I am willing to try it. And as far as classroom discusion, I hope I lead then follow the students the direction. Right now that seems like the best plan.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
some extra thoughts on Perl & Tobin
After Monday, I started to think more about the Sondra Perl article and the method used in her research. I think it is valuable to actually track and identify the process of writing—although the coding has me completely confused! It might not be an exact science, but understanding what we do—or what some “unskilled” writers do—can help us address and work through difficulties. Just realizing some of the habits noted in the Perl research has made me reevaluate some of my thoughts on composition.
In the section on prewriting, Perl mentions that the actual prewriting phase for most students was very minimal—only an average of four minutes. However, for students without a clear, concise plan, “writing led to planning which led to clarifying which led to more writing.” Also, “developing and clarifying of ideas is facilitated once students translate some of those ideas into written form” (432). So, articulating thoughts in writing sparked new ideas and directions. Perl later discusses the “recursive movements” of the students, and how they were constantly writing, editing, and planning (432). I think some recursive practice is natural in writing. Writing, after all, is not a linear process. Perl notes that “composing does not occur in a straightforward, linear fashion” (433). As writers, we seem to naturally rework our thoughts, whether it is coming up with a better sounding word, adding extra phrases to that first paragraph, moving up a sentence, noticing a misspelling, or suddenly thinking of an example to use later. That’s why it’s so much easier to draft on a computer rather than with pencil and paper. I think I embrace the non-linear aspects of writing! From Perl’s research, however, there does seem to be some recursive behavior that is deterring and distracting, such as the students’ preoccupation with proofreading.
Although Perl does not address ways to counteract or overcome these habits, I think the article was a fitting companion to Lad Tobin’s discussion. He does mention that Perl’s recursive take on writing, along with the more daring aspects of process pedagogy, were lost as the practice became a “regimented sequence that divided the writing process into neat stages of prewriting, writing, and revising” (11). I still think those are crucial stages—but we need to keep the recursive nature of writing in mind. I started to wonder if free-writing would be a good way initiate a type of prewriting phase, while also freeing students from the hyper-editing problem long enough for them to generate ideas. As Perl pointed out, writing led to more planning and writing. Actually, I have never been a fan of free-writing. I always hated doing it, and don’t know quite why. But as I read the Perl and Tobin articles, the theory behind practices like these started to make sense. To avoid the process pedagogy rigidity Tobin mentions, exercises like this shouldn’t be required, exactly (maybe that’s why I always hated it!), but I think it is something to promote.
In the section on prewriting, Perl mentions that the actual prewriting phase for most students was very minimal—only an average of four minutes. However, for students without a clear, concise plan, “writing led to planning which led to clarifying which led to more writing.” Also, “developing and clarifying of ideas is facilitated once students translate some of those ideas into written form” (432). So, articulating thoughts in writing sparked new ideas and directions. Perl later discusses the “recursive movements” of the students, and how they were constantly writing, editing, and planning (432). I think some recursive practice is natural in writing. Writing, after all, is not a linear process. Perl notes that “composing does not occur in a straightforward, linear fashion” (433). As writers, we seem to naturally rework our thoughts, whether it is coming up with a better sounding word, adding extra phrases to that first paragraph, moving up a sentence, noticing a misspelling, or suddenly thinking of an example to use later. That’s why it’s so much easier to draft on a computer rather than with pencil and paper. I think I embrace the non-linear aspects of writing! From Perl’s research, however, there does seem to be some recursive behavior that is deterring and distracting, such as the students’ preoccupation with proofreading.
Although Perl does not address ways to counteract or overcome these habits, I think the article was a fitting companion to Lad Tobin’s discussion. He does mention that Perl’s recursive take on writing, along with the more daring aspects of process pedagogy, were lost as the practice became a “regimented sequence that divided the writing process into neat stages of prewriting, writing, and revising” (11). I still think those are crucial stages—but we need to keep the recursive nature of writing in mind. I started to wonder if free-writing would be a good way initiate a type of prewriting phase, while also freeing students from the hyper-editing problem long enough for them to generate ideas. As Perl pointed out, writing led to more planning and writing. Actually, I have never been a fan of free-writing. I always hated doing it, and don’t know quite why. But as I read the Perl and Tobin articles, the theory behind practices like these started to make sense. To avoid the process pedagogy rigidity Tobin mentions, exercises like this shouldn’t be required, exactly (maybe that’s why I always hated it!), but I think it is something to promote.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
On Fox
I agree with Bob that extensive comments are good for student's writing, especially if they read and take seriously the comments, if they think about their work. I really think that all these things we have been talking about on this blog, student centered learning, introducing satire and humor into the classroom, and getting students engaged and excited about their work is what Fox is fundamentally talking about in her article. She says the most important thing to her about being published is the responses she recieves after the fact. What we are after, fundamentally, is creating a response. We want responsive students. We want them to respond in class, respond to each other, and utimaltely to respond in writing. What we are after is not the response, however but the human connection.
Bob touched on this when he sayed that he wanted people to respond to his blogs; it is important to him to have that human connection-to know someone else is out there listening. Ultimately this is what we all want. Fox touched on it a little further when she talked about the different situations in which writing a letter was a very profound experience, that people can ache with a caring about their writing that have never encountered before. Like Ashely, I am sure we all have deep memories of a time when we wrote a letter that we felt was life-changing and nothing was more important at the time, I know I have.
The challenge then is to bring this to the classroom, somhow convey to the students that writing is about reaching out to others in a more profound way. When we are writing to reach out, to realy tell our story, or get people's attention, we do it with the ache of caring. Perhaps the trick is to get the students to think of their witing as responses to the world around them, to other humans, to what they read or see on the street. If we can make them feel like this is their opportunity to respond in their voice with their words, it will feel less didatic and more necessary.
Bob touched on this when he sayed that he wanted people to respond to his blogs; it is important to him to have that human connection-to know someone else is out there listening. Ultimately this is what we all want. Fox touched on it a little further when she talked about the different situations in which writing a letter was a very profound experience, that people can ache with a caring about their writing that have never encountered before. Like Ashely, I am sure we all have deep memories of a time when we wrote a letter that we felt was life-changing and nothing was more important at the time, I know I have.
The challenge then is to bring this to the classroom, somhow convey to the students that writing is about reaching out to others in a more profound way. When we are writing to reach out, to realy tell our story, or get people's attention, we do it with the ache of caring. Perhaps the trick is to get the students to think of their witing as responses to the world around them, to other humans, to what they read or see on the street. If we can make them feel like this is their opportunity to respond in their voice with their words, it will feel less didatic and more necessary.
Readings for Monday, September 24
Fox:
Finally, Mem Fox reveals the writer’s dirtiest secret: we need praise for the work that we do in order to feed our massive, terrible egos. Well, maybe I’m exaggerating, but she does speak the truth: feedback is a rewarding and useful tool. I was able to relate to this article personally because, due to the realities of freelance writing, I don’t make very much money in comparison to the amount of work that I do. But since this writing is posted on the Internet, I receive more feedback than I ever would with print – and when I don’t get a single comment, it’s devastating (thankfully, this is rare). I write because I think I have ideas that are valuable, and when I receive feedback, I know that these ideas have been spread and will perhaps have a positive effect. Hence, satisfaction on my part.
This applies to school, as well. I tend to work harder on papers and assignments when teachers give an acceptable amount of feedback; I’m talking about comments left in the margins as opposed to solitary question marks and smiley faces. As teachers, the primary audience for student writing, we need to show our students that writing can be rewarding. How can we do this? By giving them an amount of feedback that shows we have thought about their work instead of merely glancing at it. I also think the idea of student blogs (which I will never stop bringing up) will give students an audience for their writing besides the teacher. If students discover that they can entertain and enlighten their peers, writing will have more of a point beyond the goal of a good grade.
Perl:
The strongest message in Perl’s article was the dangers of students editing during the writing process; and this problem has only grown worse since word processers start pointing out your mistakes as you type (when I was a tutor, I always made sure that I turned this feature off if a student was going to be using a computer). It seems that most of these students with writing problems are aware of their problems, or have general low self-esteem and befuddlement in regard to writing. And once again we are drawn back to the tip of the iceberg – like the Titanic – to watch these students worry about the surface level of their work. After all, it’s the part of writing that’s been emphasized the most through their lives up to that point.
Even good writers can become stymied when they second-guess themselves constantly throughout the writing process. We need to teach our students that the best method is to write first, and edit later. But, for the love of god, make sure you edit.
Belkin:
Not much to say about this, other than the fact that it was an interesting look at a period in the history of writing instruction, and that I agreed with Belkin’s conclusion. We need to keep writing fun and interesting, but the course still needs to have some sort of old-school structure. Without this structure, I think most students are going to be confused about the goals of the course or, even worse, not take it seriously. If your students were to walk into your class and the teaching you gave them amounted to “Just write,” they’d probably take as much away from their experience if they spent the whole day finger-painting. Writing can be fun, interesting, and rewarding, but I think students need to know it should have the point. And with a lot of the process pedagogy, writing didn’t seem to have much of a point.
Finally, Mem Fox reveals the writer’s dirtiest secret: we need praise for the work that we do in order to feed our massive, terrible egos. Well, maybe I’m exaggerating, but she does speak the truth: feedback is a rewarding and useful tool. I was able to relate to this article personally because, due to the realities of freelance writing, I don’t make very much money in comparison to the amount of work that I do. But since this writing is posted on the Internet, I receive more feedback than I ever would with print – and when I don’t get a single comment, it’s devastating (thankfully, this is rare). I write because I think I have ideas that are valuable, and when I receive feedback, I know that these ideas have been spread and will perhaps have a positive effect. Hence, satisfaction on my part.
This applies to school, as well. I tend to work harder on papers and assignments when teachers give an acceptable amount of feedback; I’m talking about comments left in the margins as opposed to solitary question marks and smiley faces. As teachers, the primary audience for student writing, we need to show our students that writing can be rewarding. How can we do this? By giving them an amount of feedback that shows we have thought about their work instead of merely glancing at it. I also think the idea of student blogs (which I will never stop bringing up) will give students an audience for their writing besides the teacher. If students discover that they can entertain and enlighten their peers, writing will have more of a point beyond the goal of a good grade.
Perl:
The strongest message in Perl’s article was the dangers of students editing during the writing process; and this problem has only grown worse since word processers start pointing out your mistakes as you type (when I was a tutor, I always made sure that I turned this feature off if a student was going to be using a computer). It seems that most of these students with writing problems are aware of their problems, or have general low self-esteem and befuddlement in regard to writing. And once again we are drawn back to the tip of the iceberg – like the Titanic – to watch these students worry about the surface level of their work. After all, it’s the part of writing that’s been emphasized the most through their lives up to that point.
Even good writers can become stymied when they second-guess themselves constantly throughout the writing process. We need to teach our students that the best method is to write first, and edit later. But, for the love of god, make sure you edit.
Belkin:
Not much to say about this, other than the fact that it was an interesting look at a period in the history of writing instruction, and that I agreed with Belkin’s conclusion. We need to keep writing fun and interesting, but the course still needs to have some sort of old-school structure. Without this structure, I think most students are going to be confused about the goals of the course or, even worse, not take it seriously. If your students were to walk into your class and the teaching you gave them amounted to “Just write,” they’d probably take as much away from their experience if they spent the whole day finger-painting. Writing can be fun, interesting, and rewarding, but I think students need to know it should have the point. And with a lot of the process pedagogy, writing didn’t seem to have much of a point.
Fox
I really enjoyed Fox's article. We've discussed many times in class the fact that students rarely feel passionate about what they are writing. They rarely "ache" to complete assignments. And why would they? Class writing is often times "imaginary, and not in a good way. It is writing that has no tangible audience other than the teacher and the 30 or so students in the class. Most times, it is read by no one but the teacher. And what do students want from the teacher? Most often times, they want a good grade. They do not want to make the teacher laugh, necessarily, or make him/her rethink an issue. Therefore, class writing often falls flat. I agree with Fox that good writing is writing you care about. As I mentioned in class, the writing I have done that I felt really soared was writing that I had an interest in completing for me, and not just for a class. How do we make students care about what they are writing in class though? If we can make students view writing as something that can be "fun" and powerful, then they are far more likely to engage with it in and out of the classroom. And that, should be the goal of every teacher. Lessons are of no use, if students do not apply them to life outside of school.
I think Fox's idea of legitimizing underground practices such as note writing is interesting. What would happen if we brought those underground activities to the forefront? How would we prevent them from becoming just another assignment? How would we keep that original authenticity? As I have said before, students do a lot more writing than they think. They simply don't SEE what they are doing as writing. They don't see themselves as composing anything when they update their About Me section of their Facebook profile. For students, writing is something you do for a teacher, and that something is not fun. I really think it would be great to show students how prolific they actually are at writing. I am just unsure of how to go about it. They seem very resistant to the whole idea, as Pam mentioned. In her Facebook interviews, students refused to acknowledge that what they were doing online was writing.
When I was in eighth grade, my English teacher had me write a letter to a famous person, to ask them if they would donate an item for the school's auction. I still remember writing that letter, and I remember actually caring about it. In fact, that, and a ninth grade essay on Stanley Kubrick (I love him), are the first two English assignments I remember. Why do I remember them? I remember the letter because it was "real" to me. It was something that was going outside of the classroom, to a person I actually wanted a response from. (I never got one, however.) The Stanley Kubrick project was exciting and interesting for me, because it was the first time I was allowed to write on whatever I wanted. Outside of school, I am very interested in films, so I appreciated that I was able to talk about the topic IN school. These types of assignments are great for students. They go along way to help students "get over" their view of writing as something that is always terrible.
I think Fox's idea of legitimizing underground practices such as note writing is interesting. What would happen if we brought those underground activities to the forefront? How would we prevent them from becoming just another assignment? How would we keep that original authenticity? As I have said before, students do a lot more writing than they think. They simply don't SEE what they are doing as writing. They don't see themselves as composing anything when they update their About Me section of their Facebook profile. For students, writing is something you do for a teacher, and that something is not fun. I really think it would be great to show students how prolific they actually are at writing. I am just unsure of how to go about it. They seem very resistant to the whole idea, as Pam mentioned. In her Facebook interviews, students refused to acknowledge that what they were doing online was writing.
When I was in eighth grade, my English teacher had me write a letter to a famous person, to ask them if they would donate an item for the school's auction. I still remember writing that letter, and I remember actually caring about it. In fact, that, and a ninth grade essay on Stanley Kubrick (I love him), are the first two English assignments I remember. Why do I remember them? I remember the letter because it was "real" to me. It was something that was going outside of the classroom, to a person I actually wanted a response from. (I never got one, however.) The Stanley Kubrick project was exciting and interesting for me, because it was the first time I was allowed to write on whatever I wanted. Outside of school, I am very interested in films, so I appreciated that I was able to talk about the topic IN school. These types of assignments are great for students. They go along way to help students "get over" their view of writing as something that is always terrible.
Samantha Blackmon's "But I'm Just White"
When I first started to read Samantha Blackmon's article, I thought that it was simply preaching about the problem of the achievement gap between different socioeconomic backgrounds, and that we, as teachers, can use technology to help close it. Not that I don't think this is an important issue; on the contrary: I think technology should be used for this, especially because it will help prepare these students for the demands of using the internet in the professional world. However, I was pleasantly suprised to find that Blackmon was offering her ideas about a much more complex issue: the fact that the internet does not provide the equal opportunities that it should, and how culture should be "replicated rather than erased in cyberspace." I guess I never even considered this to be a problem before. I always assumed that the problem with not everyone using technology was because of a lack of funding in public schools and even some public libraries. However, after reading some of the student accounts, it was brought to my attention that the actual world wide web itself can be hindering for minorities who do have internet access, not necessarily to be able to use it, but to be able to express themselves as individuals of a community with which they can identify. For example, on p. 94, the quote from Justin, who is African-American, really struck me as problematic: "At least black people are allowed to even have web sites. I'm sure the Internet world is run mostly by whites, and they have the power to allow and not allow people to make web sites." Now while this particular student may or may not have had much experience surfing the web in the past, I think what is important is that he doesn't even feel he can be a real part of it. We all know that anyone can build a web site and be active on the internet, but if there is a general consensus amongst minority groups that internet technology is targeted for the majority and being controlled by the majority, then that is a problem. I think that when it comes to teaching writing, in this day and age where the internet is a huge part of the academic and professional worlds, it is imperative that students learn tools to use this technology. It's not just about closing an achievement gap (which, again, I do think is very important). Part of closing an achievement gap is allowing all communities to function together, yet in individual ways. Meaning, a person from any given minority group should feel welcome, and should be able to be a part of the WWW community, and it should be a resource for learning and for expressing cultures. Bottom line: we (the teachers) have to show our students all of the resources that we can, so that they can use them, too. Even if we're teaching how to write, which really only requires paper and a pen (or a word processor), we should still incorporate internet technology in the classroom because we are teaching our students to be critical thinkers. If we want our students to learn to write and think about more complex issues, rather than spitting out information they've read on abortion or capital punishment, then we should be helping to enrich their individual cultures on the internet, which in turn will make them want to write about them. Okay, I'm done ranting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)