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.