Technology

3 of the 4 readings in, I'm seeing differing opinions about technology and how it pertains to writing.

Morgan seems a bit skeptical about the range of technology and suggests more than once that its use will not take hold quickly--"until there is universal access technology--not a likely scenario" (207, Guide to Composition Pedagogies). Well, his essay was written in 1998, and merely 10 years later, technology has become part of our everyday life. In 1998, I was a freshman/sophomore in college and I got my first e-mail address. I also got my first computer (I was one of maybe 4 on my dorm room floor to have my own). In the ten years since, EVERYTHING I have done has revolved around computers. Then only things I hand write in school are grades/comments on papers and material on the chalkboard, and even that is being replaced by an increased use of a SMART board. Today's students are growing up with these technologies as if they have always been there.

Faigley, referring to Michael Lewis's research and writing, says "children are best equipped to adapt to this new social order...no commitments to old institutions and old ways of thinking" (Composition Studies, 175). He is referring to the information available on the Internet, but it pertains to aptitude towards technology and its use.

Using technology in our classrooms is a given, and teaching our students the best ways to use technology with their writing, whether as a word processor or Faigley's Multimedia Essay, is in the best interest of our students. Julie assigned us these blogs, the first of my educational career, without batting an eye or worrying about our access to technology or our fluency with blogs because it expanded the range of cooperative learning. Technology offers hundreds of other ways of enhancing student learning and writing if you look for them and hold ourselves open to growth and exploration.

Never Mind

I figured it out, apparently I was blocked from the system.

Inter-library Loan

Can anyone tell me how to order a book that they have at the Penn State UP campus? I found it on-line and clicked "I want it" but when I put it through, it said the my "privilage has expired". Thanks.

Democracy, Pedagogy, and the Personal Essay by Joel Haefner

John Dewey gets my prize for the quote that I feel has been the most important thing I've read in here so far, "The very idea of education is a freeing of individual capacity in a progressive growth directed to social aims." (513) Now, I'm not going out on a limb claiming to have read other Dewey writing and agree with is point of view, but I think that quote means a lot to writing and its ideology and pedagogy. Isn't that the point of an American education, to be individualistic AND work toward the greater good of the society. Above all, that should be the ideology of writing instruction, to teach our students to write in the way that works best for them. To expose them to all of the different types, genres, purposes, etc. of writing and allow them to pick and chose between methods and create an individual "portfolio" that fits them best.

Haefner puts up arguments about essays as democratic and how best to use them in the classroom. Berthoff encourages teachers to teach the higher meaning of language and how it can create even more meaning for the writer. Last week we read about Trimbur and the collaborative approach and Bizell's inner and out directed theories. Etc., etc., etc. We have read papers (essays) from some very intelligent theorists who are all excellent writers and persuaders (though they use way too many big words for my taste) and sometimes they agree and sometimes they don't, but they all put forth arguments and data and examples and charts that show the true aim of discourse and the best writing ideology.

But is there one pedagogy or ideology that will fit the writing needs of all of America's students? Is one ideology going to fit every student we come across? No way. Individuality is too important to the American. Sure, we have social expectations and norms, but at heart, we embrace our individualism and need to educate our students that way as well, especially in their writing. So as educators, we gauge the needs of our students and pick and choose the methods and pedagogues that will work best. Learning disabled students may need a five paragraph outline. English Language Learners may need more grammar instruction. Students who were never read to may need to be exposed to more types of writing and literature. Well read, high thinking students may need more independence and room to grow. Gardner taught us about the "Multiple Intelligences Theory" and I am a firm believer. Every student has talents and strengths and teaching to the middle, a generalized, this is the way method, is too much for some students and holds others back.

Wow! I'm going to finish my rant now. Sorry, I think I've gotten way off topic here, but I guess I have to learn and grow as I write if I want my students to do the same.

Cognition, Convention, and Certainty by Patricia Bizzell

I wish law makers and makers of educational policy makers would read this article and use a bit of the common sense it offers. There is no "certainty" when it comes to students, and there is no mold into which every student will fit. "...being so situated is the most important thing we have in common" (409). NCLB has created a mold into which all students MUST fit, or else...

But that isn't reality. That isn't even utopia or something to aspire to, that's boring. I don't want robots in my class, I like having different personalities and ideas and challenges in the classroom and guess what, that's how the rest of the world outside education works as well.

Though I am an opponent of NCLB, I have often defended the law and the types of tests given because right now, they are the only way to collect data on ALL students, disaggregate the data, and compare student learning (or teacher instruction). But should all students be assessed the same way? Should students in Las Vegas be taught and assessed in the same way as students in small town Pennsylvania?

Yes, I can see the benefits for a standard curriculum to a certain extent, but should students from inner city school districts be held to the same standards as students from higher socio-economical neighborhoods? That is a question that can, and maybe should, be discussed at great length. Though arguing against it, Bizzell still concedes "there is no way to escape all discourse communities, stand outside them and pronounce judgment" (408).

Having such a large base of students (millions and millions), it is very difficult (even impossible) to create ideological perfection. Maybe that's why according to the constitution, education and educational funding isn't guaranteed at the federal level, but at the state level. NCLB is a federal program, so technically, is it constitutionally legal?

"Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning" by John Trimbur

Anyone who has been a part of the public education system during the last ten years has heard of the term Collaborative Learning. Learning while working together, it makes sense and it works in the classroom, but I have simply taken it for granted, and Trimbur has given some insight into why it works.

Pedro Beade, through Trimbar, "worries that consensus might be used to justfiy the practices of 'a crazy, totalitarian state'" (462). Others see consensus "stifl[ing] individual voice and creativity". But I think quite the opposite. In a teacher led classroom, where the teacher does 100% of the teaching and the students do 100% of the learning, the teacher imparts his/her expertise onto the students and again to quote Trimbar using "intellectual hoarding". This sounds more like a crazy totalitarian state. Of course, the teacher offers knowledge as reading, life experiences, and training has enabled them to do so, but the idea of learning collaboratively, where the teacher is part of the same learning community, is brilliant. I have been the authority, but I also relish the opportunity when through discussion, a student brings forth a prediction I never thought of, or an interpretation that never crossed my mind. This happens even more often between students, and is a beautiful experience.

Trimbar's whole essay depends wholy on the redefinition of consensus, "a strategy that structures differences by organizing them in relation to each other" (468). This means that consensus isn't everybody agreeing, or even everybody agreeing to disagree (468), its everybody agreeing that each group member comes with different life experiences and different talents to offer to the whole. Students can assimilate learning and work together to a common goal, learning more and accepting differing opinions for what they are, intelligent viewpoints that each learning hasn't thought of yet. It "enables individuals to participate actively and meaningfully in group life" (463).

Now, Trimbar refers to utopia quite a bit toward the end of the essay, and my description of collaborative learning sounds every bit the part, but utopia rarely occurs in the real world classroom. Modeling, teaching, practicing, redirecting, encouraging, students to work collaboratively must occur at all levels of education and even teachers need to learn how to effectively collaborate with their students. It's definitely not easy, but nothing meaningful and worth it ever is.

Three Mysteries... by Peter Elbow

I often find myself wondering if I really have anything to write about, only to sit down and begin, and find the words pouring out of me. This has been the case for most of my posts for this class and fits beautifully with Elbow's thoughts on freewriting and "You still have to try a bit..." (Elbow, 12). I find myself getting frustrated each time I hear "I don't know what to write!" because I have heard it SOOOOOO many times and it always seems to come from either unmotivated or lazy students. Somewhere at my core, I feel stubbornness emitting from the student and by golly, the only one allowed to be stubborn in my classroom is me! I've learned to push past the frustration and ask guiding questions that usually light the bulb above their heads and get them writing, but I hadn't really put much thought into teaching the students how to turn that bulb on themselves. For most of the kids, it comes natural, so I guess I have just accepted that a few need the kick in the pants instead of just teaching them to fish for themselves (too many metaphors?).

I really like the idea of inkshedding (Elbow, 13). I think with a lot of modeling and preparing, it can effectively help students freewrite positively and gain from the experience. I'd like to try this with my stubborn students as a possible strategy.

Red Pen Junkies

I have an answer to Amy's red pen junkies, because I know plenty of them myself. Use a green pen when correcting student papers, not just their writing. It still stands out, but it doesn't share the negative connotations a red pen carries. It's a simple thing that just may help one or two of your students with confidence.

Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked by Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford

Should a writer concern him/herself with an audience, either real or imagined, while writing? That is a question that can be answered by looking at the purpose for writing. What is the goal of the writer? To entertain, persuade, inform, of course the audience must be kept in mind, that's a no brainer. To blow off steam, jot a list, take notes, not so much.

I think the real question is how do we make our students aware of their audience while they write. Obviously, the majority of the time, the teacher IS that audience. Because of the things I focus on while teacher, my students pick up on the things I want to see in their writing, and they write to please me/improve their grade. When that becomes their purpose, regardless of the topic or "type" of writing, students don't usually see past the teacher when considering audience. Ede and Lunsford highlight Walter Ong's theories when considering the audience invoked. Ong points out "The student must turn his real audience, the teacher into someone else."

I think one of the most important points made is that the writer is the first reader of the work. I work very hard trying to get my students to understand this point. They are their own most important audience because they are the first audience they must impress, persuade, entertain, etc. Students know when they've done good work, and if they are not impressed with their own writing, persuasions, etc., they can't expect another audience to be so either. Understanding this allows them to take pride in their writing and makes them excited to show others, allowing another audience to give feedback and suggestions.

But this isn't always an easy thing to understand for students. At the beginning of the year, it never fails that the first pride students take is the length. If they can write 3-4-5-12 pages, regardless of quality, they are impressed with themselves. That is a great first step in taking pride, and from there, teachers can guide them to consider quality as well. This is much more difficult for them to grasp, but by encouraging, modeling, conferencing, and countless other -ings, students can take that step. But I don't thinks it's feasible to consider other audiences, let alone invoking or adressing them, until they do take that step.

Teaching Writing as a Process Not Product, Donald M. Murray

I love Murray's language when describing writing, "continual excitement" (4), "coaches, encouragers, developers, creators" (5). He sounds like a teacher of writing who loves writing AND teaching.

Teaching writing in it's "glory and it's unfinishedness" (4) is a great theory. How many times have we, as accomplished writers, revisited something written in the past, only to think, "I could have said that this way," or "what was I thinking there?" I am constantly trying to impress upon my students the beauty of revising.

I do wonder about Murray's breakdown of writing time (85% prewriting, 1% writing, 14% revising [4]). This may be the breakdown for accomplished writers, but I see a very different breakdown from my own students. Left to their own devices, I can estimate a best case 10% prewriting, 88% writing, 2% editing. So often, students finish writing and can't wait to get it out of their hands. No matter how many times I nag, "Did you edit? Are all your sentences complete? Do you have juicy language? Did you, did you did you...?", students still give a quick skim and move on. This drives me batty. I personally love editing, it's the easiest part. You take what you already wrote and make it better. I try to impress this upon my students, and they try (or pretend to try), but they are so focused on the closure that is turning their papers in, they still only half-heartedly edit/revise.

For me, I need a little more of an answer to Murray's own question "How do you motivate you student to pass through the process, perhaps even pass through it again and again on the same piece of writing?" Is there a magic answer? If so, someone let me it on it.

Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar

Wow, grammar is obsolete. I would have given argument to that before reading this article, but after reading it, I think I knew it all along. What place does grammar hold in the teaching of writing? Throughout the reading, I referred back to my own teachings and experiences and I think I agree with Hartwell. For example, as part of a Daily Oral Language warm-up activity, my students correct incorrect sentences (The boy take a bath). Everyone one of my students can tell me 'take' should be 'takes', but there is almost a daily routine where I am pulling my hair out asking over and over again, "WHY? COME ON, YOU KNOW THIS! WHY?" Exactly, why? Why do they need to know this? They fix the sentences, as readers, they know the rules, why do they have to know why? I only know because my first year teaching, I looked it up. As a 23 year old with degrees in creative writing and elementary education, I had absolutely NO IDEA why. Should my ten and eleven year olds?

I like Hartwell's rule Grammar 1. Like the rules above, native speakers naturally know certain rules, even if they can't tell you the Grammar 2 reason. An example of this is student writing. Students write quickly, like a race to get the words out of their heads and onto the paper. There are A LOT of mistakes. But if that student stands up to read that mistake filled story to the class out loud, he will naturally correct most of the mistakes and the listeners won't even know about the written errors. I have seen this countless times as well. The writer (now reading aloud) inherently knows how it is supposed to sound, and reads it correctly, despite the grammatical errors in the actual writing. They know Grammar 1 and could care less about Grammar 2 and only care about Grammar 4 on the rubric and their grades.

I think one of the best points Hartley made was in his description of the study done in the New Zealand High School. "After two years, no differences were detected in writing performance... after three years small differences...these were more than offset by the less positive attitude they showed toward their English studies" (Hartley, 206-707). Grammar 2 and 4 are boring and make kids hate writing. When I'm pulling my hair out asking my students WHY, their eyes are rolling back.

This really has opened my eyes a bit about my teaching practices and the emphasis I put on certain concepts. Will I throw out all grammatical concepts? No way, cold turkey never works. But I will be more conscientious about what I am teaching and how it will make my students better writers.

"The Making of Knowledge in Composition"

The beginnings of this book was very interesting. It brought many thoughts to my mind and though I take issue with many of the statements (the teaching of novels and poems is insane, possibly un-American [North, 12], are you kidding me?!) I'll focus on the article's dealings with the teaching of Composition.

The "tripod" of English studies, language, literature, and composition (North, 10) makes a lot of sense. I have never really thought through the breakdown of English, but that's as great a place to start as any. I understand why academic programs and professors leaned toward teaching language and literature (though un-American) and shied away from teaching composition. Language is very concrete, black and white, based on prescriptive rules of grammar, usage, spelling and all the other fun stuff. There are right answers and there are wrong answers. Literature, insane and in all its glory, is the reading of already written pieces, the dissecting, analyzing, and criticizing of written pieces. And though it is not always concrete (somebody please tell that to an undergraduate British Literature professor I had) it is concrete enough to come up with satisfying answers to assuage the ever-analyzing minds of literature buffs.

Composition, as I am beginning to understand from our readings and our class discussions, is an all together different beast. We discussed theorists and at least 14 aims of discourse (scientific, dialectic, rhetorical, poetic, rational, emotional, ethical, technical, creative, expository, descriptive, persuasive, narrative, analysis... and I didn't start taking notes until about 20 minutes in). Try fitting that into a freshman composition class (or a fifth grade writing curriculum). Teaching writing is not easy. I love to write and I love to teach writing, but I reflect a lot on my teaching and wonder often how effective I am. I'm not talking about test scores either, I'm talking about teaching my student to write. There is no concrete answer for writing (outside of the language aspects). Writing is subjective, personal, emotive, in the moment, opinionated, and countless other adjectives. "Composition...provide second class academic citizens with a way out of their academic 'ghetto'" (North, 14). You can't fit those on a rubric and the state sure as heck cannot authentically assess those qualities.

I can understand why there has been trouble defining Composition and its aim and I agree that "in English teacher we have relied too long on our best guesses" (North, 16). I am taking this class to find my definition of the aims of Composition and I am tired of guessing.

James Berlin's "Contemporary Composition"

Berlins theory about writer, reality, audience, and language work well into writing curriculum and the teaching of writing. From his descriptions, I consider my self a New Rhetorician. "The New Rhetoric sees the writer as a creator of meaning, a shaper of reality..." (Berlin, 267). I can see the significance of this theory both as a teacher of writing and as a writer myself. Writing to me is the imparting of information (or in Berlin's voice, shaping of ) in a creative, unique, interesting, succinct manner using a common language that can be understood by the average reader. These elements can be present in any form of writing, fulfilling any aim whether it's informational, persuasive, expository, literary, or poetic.

Berlin mentions the usage of metaphors to "capture what is unique in each personal vision" (Berlin, 263). Teaching students the proper and effective usage of figurative language lets them put a personal touch and their own "voice" into their writing while giving their audience references by which to make personal connections. With practice, encouragement, and guidance, students can learn how to make writing their own, thereby eliminating much of the "dismay some students feel about writing" (Berlin, 256). In my experience, as soon as a student's guard is down, as soon as a pin hole is poked in his/her preconceived negative ideas about writing, great strides can be made. Writing is not all about rules, spelling, and punctuation. "Writing is making words behave the way you want them to" (Berlin, 267).

This leads back into the beginning of Berlin's paper and his statement "differences in teaching approaches...located in the diverging definitions of the composing process itself" (Berlin, 256). I am going to add to this statement. The different opinions teachers hold about the aims of writing and their own personal feelings about writing affect student attitudes about writing and their writing ability. Students, regardless of age or experience, are astute and can easily read teachers' body language, facial expression, and even open opposition to writing. This happens when teachers focus only on the technical and grammatical aspects of writing. The possibility of individuality, creativity, and expression in writing adds interest and even excitement to the writing process and keep students, and teachers, from getting too bored. This boredom leads to the dismay Berlin mentions and leads young writers to write only by assignment and only for grades, thus limiting the opportunity to grow as writers.

As a teacher, I encourage my students to write by writing right next to them, showing my own examples of "juicy" language (what we call descriptive language), letting them see me struggle to come up with ideas and work hard to edit and revise. They know I love to write and they are encouraged by it and that initial encouragement is all the pin hole I need in their armor to open the world of opportunity with them.

Kinneavy's "The Basic Aims of Discourse"

To be quite honest, the first time I read this paper I thought that I was in over my head. I could not wrap my mind around Kinneavy's focus or point and did not recognize the authors and/0r theorists to which he was referring.

After a good night's rest and a Stewart Smalleyesq reaffirmation, I tackled it again...only to find the information slightly more understandable and the point hazy, but visible.

In his conclusion, however, I am able to find the pertinence in the world of education and ignore my ignorance of rhetorical history and theory. Though my experience in teaching writing is relatively short, seven years, I have noticed a shift in philosophy of the writers of the writing curriculum recently that seems to relate to one of Kinneavy's statements, no composition program can afford to neglect any of these basic aims of discourse (Kinneavy, 137). Curriculum and school administration have encouraged teachers to treat writing as a cross-curricular activity, thus fulfilling some of the requirements to teach "different" aims of discourse at the same time as fitting more writing time into an already saturated curriculum.

I agree with this approach because students need to be taught (or, to work in Berlin's thoughts, given the opportunity to learn) how to write in different situations, about varying topics, and for different purposes. A great example of this is teaching students how to respond to literature. They make personal connections to their reading that first show understanding of the text (essential to our results driven, test-happy focus) but more importantly enhance their comprehension of the reading using a higher level of thinking. The best part is, students who "hate" to write (or in Berlin's more poetic voice: the dismay students display about writing [Berlin, 256]) don't realize they are writing because it is a reading assignment. In social studies, when asked to complete an essay, they are "tricked" into writing an informative or perhaps even a persuasive piece. Mathematics offers the chance for students to describe processes. Then finally, in writing class, we can write poetically or expressively. Through cross-curricular activities, students are given the opportunity to hit most of Kinneavy's aims of discourse.

In his conclusion, Kinneavy discusses the negative effects of not addressing each the "natural" aims of discourse and here is where I would like to add my own, that I already alluded to. By making writing too technical, too much about rules and processes, too much about fulfilling obligations (grading, portfolios, rubrics), we are turning students away from it. Writing needs to be presented as a natural learning aid, but it also needs to be presented as a fun, exciting, worthwhile activity that can be performed even when it's not assigned by a teacher for a grade! Teachers of writing should model writing, both the technical aspects and the fun aspects, using professional language as well as metaphorical language (Berlin, 263) and allow students to see the wonderful worlds they can visit through writing.

So my own basic aim of discourse is to teach (sorry Berlin) truths about the world, the technical, professional, informational, expressional (is that a word?), and allow each writer, both student and professional alike, to discover their own aim of discourse.

First blog

Wow, I feel like either like a Hollywood star...or a geeky teenage tecky. Yeah, probably closer to the geek. Hope you enjoy!