Thursday, November 7, 2013
Week 11, Post 5: My Favorite Martian
It looks as if Unit Three will be the autobiography, which explains the form and content. It would follow B & P as closely as possible, but with exponential work on one man's shoulders.
Week 11, Post 3: Tentative Overview
Unit 1: Discovering personal voice; personal narrative; descriptive essay.
Unit 2: Taking a stand; the argumentative essay.
Unit 3: Autobiography.
Unit 4. Sociological text; essay relating autobiography in sociological context.
Unit 5. Sociological research paper.
Unit 2: Taking a stand; the argumentative essay.
Unit 3: Autobiography.
Unit 4. Sociological text; essay relating autobiography in sociological context.
Unit 5. Sociological research paper.
Week 11, Post 2: IRW Tensions?
The primary gaps between IRW and the model I have in mind (largely B & P) are community building and metacognitive understanding. In B & P's model, students are so busy reading and writing and re-writing, there is probably much less emphasis on chatting about process. Also, because my course would be half as long as IRW, there would be far fewer chances for community building.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Week 11, Post 1: What I Wanna Say Is
Flesh out your teaching philosophy a bit more for part 1 of the portfolio. (Feel free to draw on the quick-writing that we did in class.) Bring 4 hard copies to class.
If philosophy means my general orientation or viewpoint about reading and writing, and the way I hope to help students, I'd say I'm an expressivist-cognitivist. I found my passion for reading and writing by doing plenty of "outside" reading and journaling in high school. In this much, at heart I'm an expressivist. I learned to assume a more formal style for essays and research papers, paying attention to form as well as content. In this sense, I'm an objectivist. I find placing a text in historical context adds many layers of additional meaning to it, so delving into context is useful, though not nearly as important as other aspects like the author's intention and the reader's schema. Given the time and resources, such social studies can be fascinating, but it's hard to justify that time spent with so many other pressing priorities; thus, only incidentally would I call my philosophy socio-cultural.
* It essential to honor the student's own schema, rather than foisting one correct meaning of a text.
* It's vital to engage the student in meaningful experiences with language -- as personal and usable as possible.
* It's important to give the student a great variety of opportunities to read (magazine articles, hypertext, fiction, nonfiction) and to write (personal narrative, descriptive essay, argumentative essay). It's equally important to give students the chance to read books of their own choosing (for pleasure) and to write "low stakes" pieces, such as free writing and non-graded journals.
*While I generally favor an expressivist approach, like B &P, I would employ pre-reading discussions and post-reading comprehension questions to ensure the basic points are clear.
*While I admire McCormick's socio-culture angle, I prefer B & P's reading/writing saturation approach, which doesn't allow much time for the historical study of the structure of power and the plight of the victims. However, as a matter of respect to all students and all cultures that they represent, there should be some lesson(s) on the erroneous misinterpretations of SE as the superior dialect, and an acknowledgement of all dialects as honorable and valid.
*It seems crucial to integrate reading and writing (I still need to understand this better).
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Week 10, Post 5: Promptness Counts
Blog 5: Do a brainstorm of your writing prompt (unit plan portfolio part 5).
We'd like you to write about an experience you've had in the last two years that's changed the way you think about things. Go on to explain why and how this experience was so significant for you.
We'd like you to write about an experience you've had in the last two years that's changed the way you think about things. Go on to explain why and how this experience was so significant for you.
Week 10, Post 4: Coarse Outline
Blog 4: Do a brainstorm of your course description (unit plan portfolio part 4).
Unit 1: Discovering personal voice; personal narrative; descriptive essay.
Unit 2: Taking a stand; the argumentative essay.
Unit 3: Autobiography.
Unit 4. Sociological text; essay relating autobiography in sociological context.
Unit 5. Sociological research paper.
Unit 1: Discovering personal voice; personal narrative; descriptive essay.
Unit 2: Taking a stand; the argumentative essay.
Unit 3: Autobiography.
Unit 4. Sociological text; essay relating autobiography in sociological context.
Unit 5. Sociological research paper.
Week 10, Post 3: The Overlook Hotel
Blog 3: Do a brainstorm of your course overview (unit plan portfolio part 3).
Students will read a variety of texts and write in a variety of styles. Focus is on the student finding his unique reading, as opposed to simply identifying plot and characters, though this will be key as well. The course will move from very personal readings and writings (the apex of which is the student autobiography) eventually to an introduction to more academic discourse, the argumentative essay and the research paper. While a chief goal is to prepare students for success in college and beyond, we present the student with many opportunities to read for pleasure and to learn to write freely in low-stakes situations, so as to build confidence.
Students will read a variety of texts and write in a variety of styles. Focus is on the student finding his unique reading, as opposed to simply identifying plot and characters, though this will be key as well. The course will move from very personal readings and writings (the apex of which is the student autobiography) eventually to an introduction to more academic discourse, the argumentative essay and the research paper. While a chief goal is to prepare students for success in college and beyond, we present the student with many opportunities to read for pleasure and to learn to write freely in low-stakes situations, so as to build confidence.
Week 10, Post 2: Ten Chins
Do a brainstorm of the tensions your might experience between your philosophy and the SFSU learning objectives (unit plan portfolio part 2).
I find myself leaning heavily toward B & P, so that brings up some tensions re: IRW. Of course, it's a bit of comparing apples and oranges, since B & P supply the entire course, but Goens only lays out some principals and objectives. Still, when Goens speaks of teaching idea-generating tools, I don't find a parallel in B & P. Writing, according to the latter, comes from reader response, essentially (expresssivist) to stimulating reading and through the process of revision; I don't find any explicit idea-generating techniques in FAC. Perhaps the biggest gap between the two models is time. B & P compress loads of education into one semester; the IRW program stretches over two semesters. This is critical to Goens' philosophy. Her ideas of community building and reader/writer development need to be learned "slowly," but most schools are unlikely to afford such luxury, so I find B & P's pragmatic approach more appealing, though it diverges from Goens'.
I find myself leaning heavily toward B & P, so that brings up some tensions re: IRW. Of course, it's a bit of comparing apples and oranges, since B & P supply the entire course, but Goens only lays out some principals and objectives. Still, when Goens speaks of teaching idea-generating tools, I don't find a parallel in B & P. Writing, according to the latter, comes from reader response, essentially (expresssivist) to stimulating reading and through the process of revision; I don't find any explicit idea-generating techniques in FAC. Perhaps the biggest gap between the two models is time. B & P compress loads of education into one semester; the IRW program stretches over two semesters. This is critical to Goens' philosophy. Her ideas of community building and reader/writer development need to be learned "slowly," but most schools are unlikely to afford such luxury, so I find B & P's pragmatic approach more appealing, though it diverges from Goens'.
Week 10, Post 1: Philosophy 101
Blog 1: Do a brainstorm of your teaching philosophy (unit plan portfolio part 1).
This seems almost comical, since I'm like a man groping in the dark, equipped with Goens, TDOC, FAC and McCormick in one hand, a flashlight in the other. It's less a philosophy and more a "greatest hits" from the above. Compared to my colleagues who've been teaching FYE in colleges for years, I have only this arsenal of books and some gut feelings.
* It essential to honor the student's own schema, rather than foisting one correct meaning of a text.
* It's vital to engage the student in meaningful experiences with language -- as personal and usable as possible.
* It's important to give the student a great variety of opportunities to read (magazine articles, hypertext, fiction, nonfiction) and to write (personal narrative, descriptive essay, argumentative essay). It's equally important to give students the chance to read books of their own choosing (for pleasure) and to write "low stakes" pieces, such as free writing and non-graded journals.
*While I generally favor an expressivist approach, like B &P, I would employ pre-reading discussions and post-reading comprehension questions to ensure the basic points are clear.
*While I admire McCormick's socio-culture angle, I prefer B & P's reading/writing saturation approach, which doesn't allow much time for the historical study of the structure of power and the plight of the victims. However, as a matter of respect to all students and all cultures that they represent, there should be some lesson(s) on the erroneous misinterpretations of SE as the superior dialect, and an acknowledgement of all dialects as honorable and valid.
*It seems crucial to integrate reading and writing (I still need to understand this better).
This seems almost comical, since I'm like a man groping in the dark, equipped with Goens, TDOC, FAC and McCormick in one hand, a flashlight in the other. It's less a philosophy and more a "greatest hits" from the above. Compared to my colleagues who've been teaching FYE in colleges for years, I have only this arsenal of books and some gut feelings.
* It essential to honor the student's own schema, rather than foisting one correct meaning of a text.
* It's vital to engage the student in meaningful experiences with language -- as personal and usable as possible.
* It's important to give the student a great variety of opportunities to read (magazine articles, hypertext, fiction, nonfiction) and to write (personal narrative, descriptive essay, argumentative essay). It's equally important to give students the chance to read books of their own choosing (for pleasure) and to write "low stakes" pieces, such as free writing and non-graded journals.
*While I generally favor an expressivist approach, like B &P, I would employ pre-reading discussions and post-reading comprehension questions to ensure the basic points are clear.
*While I admire McCormick's socio-culture angle, I prefer B & P's reading/writing saturation approach, which doesn't allow much time for the historical study of the structure of power and the plight of the victims. However, as a matter of respect to all students and all cultures that they represent, there should be some lesson(s) on the erroneous misinterpretations of SE as the superior dialect, and an acknowledgement of all dialects as honorable and valid.
*It seems crucial to integrate reading and writing (I still need to understand this better).
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Week 9, Post 9: McCormick, Ch. 5: Mythbusters
Summarize your assigned chapter. (5)
McCormick decries conventional pedagogies (and their textbooks) that point students in conflicting directions, both to remain unbiased and to take a stand when writing a research paper. More wrong headed still, she says, is the fact that these pedagogies are rooted in objectivism. The remedy, she asserts, is to "recognize the situated nature of all discourses, including one's own, and to evaluate them in terms of their effects rather than their claims to objectivity" (136-7). Additionally problematic for the author, these conventional methodologies ask students to discern "reliable" from "unreliable" sources without any real clues on how to do it; then they want students to evaluate such sources before the writing, already taking sides (140). Should the student find any contradictions between sources, he's instructed to neutralize or ignore them: "The goal of such writing is to simplify and homogenize, not to interrogate the tensions within a given field of inquiry" (141). McCormick's method, though, sees contradictions as aspects of "human history which ideology works to conceal." The goal of the student, then, is no less than to "reconstruct history from alternative perspectives for different ends" (142). The culmination of McCormick's pedagogy is the research paper, in which students anaylze conflicting viewpoints, reading ample historical texts, in the aim of rewriting a "cultural myth" (146).
McCormick decries conventional pedagogies (and their textbooks) that point students in conflicting directions, both to remain unbiased and to take a stand when writing a research paper. More wrong headed still, she says, is the fact that these pedagogies are rooted in objectivism. The remedy, she asserts, is to "recognize the situated nature of all discourses, including one's own, and to evaluate them in terms of their effects rather than their claims to objectivity" (136-7). Additionally problematic for the author, these conventional methodologies ask students to discern "reliable" from "unreliable" sources without any real clues on how to do it; then they want students to evaluate such sources before the writing, already taking sides (140). Should the student find any contradictions between sources, he's instructed to neutralize or ignore them: "The goal of such writing is to simplify and homogenize, not to interrogate the tensions within a given field of inquiry" (141). McCormick's method, though, sees contradictions as aspects of "human history which ideology works to conceal." The goal of the student, then, is no less than to "reconstruct history from alternative perspectives for different ends" (142). The culmination of McCormick's pedagogy is the research paper, in which students anaylze conflicting viewpoints, reading ample historical texts, in the aim of rewriting a "cultural myth" (146).
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Week 9, Posts 1-8: Curricular Riffing on Tan
How would each of the teachers below use use Mother Tongue in a developmental writing class? What kind of pre-reading, during reading, and post reading activities would would they do? What kind of writing might they assign? How might they structure the writing process? How might they evaluate the writing?
1 a traditional remedial teacher (e.g. Fry)
2 a teacher who aligns with SFSU's IRW philosophies
3 a teacher who aligns with Discovery of Competence
4 a teacher who aligns with Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts
5 a cognitivist teacher
6 an expressivist teacher
7 a socio-cultural teacher
8 a teacher who aligns with McCormick's ideological approach
Post 1. Traditional remedial. Pre-reading: Exerpt on Amy Tan (bio) OR Introduce a grammar function (subordinate clauses). Reading: "Mother Tongue." Post-reading: comprehension q's and/or review of subordinate clauses in "Mother Tongue." Writing: one paragraph on "the main idea" of "Mother Tongue." Structure: Focus on grammar: try to incorporate 2-3 subordinate clauses. Evaluate: teacher reads and gives a check, check plus or check minus.
Post 2. IRW. Pre-reading: KWL+ Students read exerpt on Amy Tan, discuss what they know her, her novels or the movie. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss how they relate (or don't) to MT. Writing: Free-write response: reaction to MT, or how home dialect made you feel re: parents and self; include metacog. memo about how this helped you (or didn't). Structure: Descriptive essay. Evaluate: Peer evaluations.
Post 3. TDOC. Pre-reading: Interview students about home dialects. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss sim's/dif's btw interview and MT. Writing: 2-3 pages comparing/contrasting per discussion. Structure: ethnographic report. Evaluate: peer evalutation and/or correspondence with teacher on the process of interview and writing.
Post 4. FAC. Pre-reading: Exerpt on Amy Tan and home dialects. Reading: MT. Keep track of how long you spent reading on 3"x5" index card; don't take notes, but mark any page for later discussion if you note something of interest. Post-reading: MT Worksheet: Name as many char's in the story as you can; list the events; star those events you find most significant. Writing: write in your journal for 1 hour: what stands out in the story? why? Structure: journal Evaluate: journals will be handed in as Assignment A. You will be expected to discuss the story and your feelings at the next class meeting.
Post 5. Cognitivist. Pre-reading: KWL+: discuss/write what you know about home dialect (schema). Reading: MT Post-reading: Comprehension q's Writing: paper on home dialects. Structure: 1-pg paper (thesis supplied by teacher). Evaluate: Teacher reads; gives check, check plus or check minus.
Post 6. Expressivist. Pre-reading: Exerpt on Tan and home dialects. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss any "responses" you felt significant in MT. Writing: Any significant responses you felt about MT. Structure: Freewrite. Evaluate: Self-evaluation of writing and of process.
Post 7. Socio-cultural. Pre-reading: Exerpt about socio-cultural implications of home dialect vs. dominant discourse (SE); also about the history of immigrants from Asia vs. immigrants, esp. in language acquisition; the implications of class struggle for immigrants vs. White middle class, esp. in education and earnings. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss impact of SE on home dialects; advantages/disadvantages for minority writers; socio-cultural limitations/opportunities of minority writers. Writing: Using 2-3 sources, write 3-5-pg. essay on the challenges of losing home dialect, the challenge to maintain it, and the economic challenges for those who can not make the switch to SE; or compare and contrast your relationship with your mother vs. Tan's to her mother, focusing on the differences/similarities in the way your family or Tan's shows respect for parents. Structure: essay with citations. Evaluate: teacher will read and assess.
Post 8. McCormick's ideological approach. Pre-reading: Same as Socio-cultural. Reading: Same as Socio-Cultural. Post-reading: Discuss sim's/dif's btw your repertoire as a reader and the text's repertoire. To what degree do they match? Writing: Same as Socio-cultural. Structure: Short essay. Evaluate: Self-evaluations of writing and of process.
1 a traditional remedial teacher (e.g. Fry)
2 a teacher who aligns with SFSU's IRW philosophies
3 a teacher who aligns with Discovery of Competence
4 a teacher who aligns with Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts
5 a cognitivist teacher
6 an expressivist teacher
7 a socio-cultural teacher
8 a teacher who aligns with McCormick's ideological approach
Post 1. Traditional remedial. Pre-reading: Exerpt on Amy Tan (bio) OR Introduce a grammar function (subordinate clauses). Reading: "Mother Tongue." Post-reading: comprehension q's and/or review of subordinate clauses in "Mother Tongue." Writing: one paragraph on "the main idea" of "Mother Tongue." Structure: Focus on grammar: try to incorporate 2-3 subordinate clauses. Evaluate: teacher reads and gives a check, check plus or check minus.
Post 2. IRW. Pre-reading: KWL+ Students read exerpt on Amy Tan, discuss what they know her, her novels or the movie. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss how they relate (or don't) to MT. Writing: Free-write response: reaction to MT, or how home dialect made you feel re: parents and self; include metacog. memo about how this helped you (or didn't). Structure: Descriptive essay. Evaluate: Peer evaluations.
Post 3. TDOC. Pre-reading: Interview students about home dialects. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss sim's/dif's btw interview and MT. Writing: 2-3 pages comparing/contrasting per discussion. Structure: ethnographic report. Evaluate: peer evalutation and/or correspondence with teacher on the process of interview and writing.
Post 4. FAC. Pre-reading: Exerpt on Amy Tan and home dialects. Reading: MT. Keep track of how long you spent reading on 3"x5" index card; don't take notes, but mark any page for later discussion if you note something of interest. Post-reading: MT Worksheet: Name as many char's in the story as you can; list the events; star those events you find most significant. Writing: write in your journal for 1 hour: what stands out in the story? why? Structure: journal Evaluate: journals will be handed in as Assignment A. You will be expected to discuss the story and your feelings at the next class meeting.
Post 5. Cognitivist. Pre-reading: KWL+: discuss/write what you know about home dialect (schema). Reading: MT Post-reading: Comprehension q's Writing: paper on home dialects. Structure: 1-pg paper (thesis supplied by teacher). Evaluate: Teacher reads; gives check, check plus or check minus.
Post 6. Expressivist. Pre-reading: Exerpt on Tan and home dialects. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss any "responses" you felt significant in MT. Writing: Any significant responses you felt about MT. Structure: Freewrite. Evaluate: Self-evaluation of writing and of process.
Post 7. Socio-cultural. Pre-reading: Exerpt about socio-cultural implications of home dialect vs. dominant discourse (SE); also about the history of immigrants from Asia vs. immigrants, esp. in language acquisition; the implications of class struggle for immigrants vs. White middle class, esp. in education and earnings. Reading: MT Post-reading: Discuss impact of SE on home dialects; advantages/disadvantages for minority writers; socio-cultural limitations/opportunities of minority writers. Writing: Using 2-3 sources, write 3-5-pg. essay on the challenges of losing home dialect, the challenge to maintain it, and the economic challenges for those who can not make the switch to SE; or compare and contrast your relationship with your mother vs. Tan's to her mother, focusing on the differences/similarities in the way your family or Tan's shows respect for parents. Structure: essay with citations. Evaluate: teacher will read and assess.
Post 8. McCormick's ideological approach. Pre-reading: Same as Socio-cultural. Reading: Same as Socio-Cultural. Post-reading: Discuss sim's/dif's btw your repertoire as a reader and the text's repertoire. To what degree do they match? Writing: Same as Socio-cultural. Structure: Short essay. Evaluate: Self-evaluations of writing and of process.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Week 8, Post 3: Practically Speaking
PRACTICE: What might your theory look like in practice? What kind of teaching activities would we see in such a classroom? Would any of the Discovery of Competence activities fit with your theory? Would any of the Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts activities fit with your theory? (Make sure that your read and comment on your group-mates' blog postings.)
Generally, in the Expressivist model, we would see lots of free reading and lots of free writing. The Expressivist goal is to provoke an emotional response (Reader Response) or expression to a text. In the ideal world, we would simply expose students to mountains of books, let them pick their choice, and let them write what they like based on their responses, since, after all, reading and writing are as natural as breathing.
TDOC activities tend to be far too prescripted and limited to the Expressionist way of thinking. TDOC activities tend to revolve around research and other group activities, as opposed to the almost unlimited freedom model of Expressivism. The students' texts are the texts of the class, but beyond this, all bets are off as to how much free reading and writing is meant to take place. Still, Expressivists favor lots of expression, including group discussion, and TDOC includes plenty of this. Generally speaking, though, TDOC would not fit well with Expressivism.
FAC activities have an even tighter rein on the student in a sense, in that the whole class does nearly everything as a group. On the other hand, they're required to do loads of free reading and lots of journals. In this way, FAC lines up nicely with the Expressionist model. Given the bounty of FAC group discussion, FAC syncs up with Expressivism, too.
On my own last week, after the reading and other blog postings, I was so exhausted, I couldn't get my head around this post, applying McCormick to other cases, let alone "tweeking" another curriculum with it. But I liked this exercise in class Thursday very much! In a way, it was my favorite class of all. It's like we were "riffing" -- to borrow a jazz term -- but with pedagogical methods, instead of musical phrases. Frankly, Mark made a tough exercise really great, pushing us and pushing us to imagine new applications. Until last Thur., I always despised curriculum planning, but I think this woke up something new in me.
Generally, in the Expressivist model, we would see lots of free reading and lots of free writing. The Expressivist goal is to provoke an emotional response (Reader Response) or expression to a text. In the ideal world, we would simply expose students to mountains of books, let them pick their choice, and let them write what they like based on their responses, since, after all, reading and writing are as natural as breathing.
TDOC activities tend to be far too prescripted and limited to the Expressionist way of thinking. TDOC activities tend to revolve around research and other group activities, as opposed to the almost unlimited freedom model of Expressivism. The students' texts are the texts of the class, but beyond this, all bets are off as to how much free reading and writing is meant to take place. Still, Expressivists favor lots of expression, including group discussion, and TDOC includes plenty of this. Generally speaking, though, TDOC would not fit well with Expressivism.
FAC activities have an even tighter rein on the student in a sense, in that the whole class does nearly everything as a group. On the other hand, they're required to do loads of free reading and lots of journals. In this way, FAC lines up nicely with the Expressionist model. Given the bounty of FAC group discussion, FAC syncs up with Expressivism, too.
On my own last week, after the reading and other blog postings, I was so exhausted, I couldn't get my head around this post, applying McCormick to other cases, let alone "tweeking" another curriculum with it. But I liked this exercise in class Thursday very much! In a way, it was my favorite class of all. It's like we were "riffing" -- to borrow a jazz term -- but with pedagogical methods, instead of musical phrases. Frankly, Mark made a tough exercise really great, pushing us and pushing us to imagine new applications. Until last Thur., I always despised curriculum planning, but I think this woke up something new in me.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Week 8, Post 1: McCormick: What I Like About You (Mostly)
REACTIONS to McCormick: What do you like? What's don't you like? What seems problematic?
Though I found the reading itself often dense and exhausting, excavation yields some Mother Lode nuggets...followed by some head scratching...
Damn Stubborn
At first, her stubborn dismissal of Objectivist and Expressivist theories seemed unnecessarily pedantic; all of the "social conditioning" rhetoric sounded as if she were winding up to throw a Marxist curveball. However, after some thought, I have to say, as a socio-cultural proponent, she makes complete sense. That is, personal interpretation of a text is a fine beginning, but any reading without a social-cultural context would give an anemic viewpoint, at best.
On the other hand, this is nothing "new," per se, since most teachers follow this, I'm confident. Who could imagine teaching Huck Finn without providing some historical/social/political context? It wouldn't be nearly as interesting or fun. How hollow it would be to read "The Yellow Wall-paper" without a discussion of the role of women in the Nineteenth Century.
Nicely Put
Her analysis of reader repertoire and textual repertoire, while not novel in concept, is stunning in its commonsense explanation of an interrelationship most of us have conceived of before, though no one, until now, has ennuciated so acutely, if at all.
All the Parts Fit
I especially enjoy the way all the parts fit when she notes the three different readings possible or, as she puts it, the three "intersections of repertoires" (87). Again, they're not radically innovative, but they make sense: the repertoires can be a "match" a "mismatch," or there's "tension." The second group denotes many readings I've had unsatisfactorily. Looking back now, she's right: the reason for the lack of success (on my part or the author's) is that I likely didn't have enough social information to make sense of it. The last catergory is most interesting in that it describes plenty of experiences I've had with modern works, such as Naked Lunch. Even after several excellent lectures helped to digest it, it failed to resonate with me personally.
But Then...
It's a bit ironic. After McCormick's lambasted the Objectivists for trying to pigeonhole students into coughing up the "the right reading," in the final analysis, McCormick and friends are so demanding of readers that it's unlikely any but the most educated can come close to becoming her ideal reader:
...to be a critically literate reader is to have the knowledge and ability to perceive the interconnectedness of social conditions and the reading and writing practices of a culture, to be able to analyse those conditions and practices, and to possess the critical and political awareness to take action within and against them (49).
One has to wonder if to be a student in McCormick's class means being, in the words of NPR, a "political junkie," or a failure. The bar's been set so high, I wonder who can vault it.
And Then...
Quoting Kathleen Weiler on Freire, McCormick both credits him for his insight, and notes that without "clearly defined theories of the subjectivities of teacher and students" (50), it's possible to wind up oppressing students as much as the Objectivists do. What the...? Two issues: 1) I'm not sure what she means by "subjectivities," 2) From the preceding passage, it seems she's confessing that, while it's vital to avoid the "banking" method of the Objectivists, she's not really clear about the actual in-class, day-to-day execution of the non-"banking" method. That's a sizable confession from someone who rejected the likes of Frank Smith because of the "holes" in this theory.
But, hey, whadya want? Like TDOC, it's a theory -- unlike, say, F, A & C, a real how-to manual.
Though I found the reading itself often dense and exhausting, excavation yields some Mother Lode nuggets...followed by some head scratching...
Damn Stubborn
At first, her stubborn dismissal of Objectivist and Expressivist theories seemed unnecessarily pedantic; all of the "social conditioning" rhetoric sounded as if she were winding up to throw a Marxist curveball. However, after some thought, I have to say, as a socio-cultural proponent, she makes complete sense. That is, personal interpretation of a text is a fine beginning, but any reading without a social-cultural context would give an anemic viewpoint, at best.
On the other hand, this is nothing "new," per se, since most teachers follow this, I'm confident. Who could imagine teaching Huck Finn without providing some historical/social/political context? It wouldn't be nearly as interesting or fun. How hollow it would be to read "The Yellow Wall-paper" without a discussion of the role of women in the Nineteenth Century.
Nicely Put
Her analysis of reader repertoire and textual repertoire, while not novel in concept, is stunning in its commonsense explanation of an interrelationship most of us have conceived of before, though no one, until now, has ennuciated so acutely, if at all.
All the Parts Fit
I especially enjoy the way all the parts fit when she notes the three different readings possible or, as she puts it, the three "intersections of repertoires" (87). Again, they're not radically innovative, but they make sense: the repertoires can be a "match" a "mismatch," or there's "tension." The second group denotes many readings I've had unsatisfactorily. Looking back now, she's right: the reason for the lack of success (on my part or the author's) is that I likely didn't have enough social information to make sense of it. The last catergory is most interesting in that it describes plenty of experiences I've had with modern works, such as Naked Lunch. Even after several excellent lectures helped to digest it, it failed to resonate with me personally.
But Then...
It's a bit ironic. After McCormick's lambasted the Objectivists for trying to pigeonhole students into coughing up the "the right reading," in the final analysis, McCormick and friends are so demanding of readers that it's unlikely any but the most educated can come close to becoming her ideal reader:
...to be a critically literate reader is to have the knowledge and ability to perceive the interconnectedness of social conditions and the reading and writing practices of a culture, to be able to analyse those conditions and practices, and to possess the critical and political awareness to take action within and against them (49).
One has to wonder if to be a student in McCormick's class means being, in the words of NPR, a "political junkie," or a failure. The bar's been set so high, I wonder who can vault it.
And Then...
Quoting Kathleen Weiler on Freire, McCormick both credits him for his insight, and notes that without "clearly defined theories of the subjectivities of teacher and students" (50), it's possible to wind up oppressing students as much as the Objectivists do. What the...? Two issues: 1) I'm not sure what she means by "subjectivities," 2) From the preceding passage, it seems she's confessing that, while it's vital to avoid the "banking" method of the Objectivists, she's not really clear about the actual in-class, day-to-day execution of the non-"banking" method. That's a sizable confession from someone who rejected the likes of Frank Smith because of the "holes" in this theory.
But, hey, whadya want? Like TDOC, it's a theory -- unlike, say, F, A & C, a real how-to manual.
Week 8, Blog 2: Boil It Down, Boys
THEORY: Blogging group 2: Expressivism
For your assigned theory please discuss the following. Also make sure that your read and comment on your group-mates blog postings:
How would you define the theory/model?
What are the main components of the theory/model?
How does it differ from the other 2 theories/models?
Who are the key players (e.g. theorists, pedagogies)?
The Expressivists
To the extent of the reading experience, Expressivists vest the power in the reader himself, encouraging students to "develop their own 'individual' and 'authentic' responses to texts" (30). According to Expressionist philosophy, reading is thought to be a completely "natural" act. Frank Smith, a chief proponent of Expressionism, said that reading should not be regarded as a "special activity" at all (and opposed all reading programs wholesale!), since, like all childhood learning, it goes on "all the time," without effort or prodding (32).
Several schools of reading theory have contributed to the various principles that have come be regarded as general components of this field. Perhaps most influential to this theory is Reading Response Criticism (Active Reader school), which says the reader is "active," a far cry from the Objectivists, who are described as seeing the reader as a "blank tape registering a ready-made message" (36).
The Objectivists
By contrast, the Objectivists put the power of the reading experience in the text; they're said to have seen the text as a "container of meaning" (46). So far as instruction, the teacher in such a a context is said to act as "banker," depositing riches into the empty minds of students.
The Social-Culturalists (Social-Constructivists)
Under "culture theory," readers are seen as "socially constructed," yet not without agency, "balanced between determinism and autonomy." Texts are neither "containers" nor, per Expressionists "infinitely pliable." Instead, this school holds it important to view texts as "in use," produced in response to an audience, the times, and social conditions (60).
Movers and Shakers
Most influential to this model are psycholinguists Frank Smith and Kenneth Goodman; reading-writing educators James Britton, Margaret Meek and Harold Rosen; also I.A. Richards, Q.D. Leavis, David Bleich and White & Pritchard.
For your assigned theory please discuss the following. Also make sure that your read and comment on your group-mates blog postings:
How would you define the theory/model?
What are the main components of the theory/model?
How does it differ from the other 2 theories/models?
Who are the key players (e.g. theorists, pedagogies)?
The Expressivists
To the extent of the reading experience, Expressivists vest the power in the reader himself, encouraging students to "develop their own 'individual' and 'authentic' responses to texts" (30). According to Expressionist philosophy, reading is thought to be a completely "natural" act. Frank Smith, a chief proponent of Expressionism, said that reading should not be regarded as a "special activity" at all (and opposed all reading programs wholesale!), since, like all childhood learning, it goes on "all the time," without effort or prodding (32).
Several schools of reading theory have contributed to the various principles that have come be regarded as general components of this field. Perhaps most influential to this theory is Reading Response Criticism (Active Reader school), which says the reader is "active," a far cry from the Objectivists, who are described as seeing the reader as a "blank tape registering a ready-made message" (36).
The Objectivists
By contrast, the Objectivists put the power of the reading experience in the text; they're said to have seen the text as a "container of meaning" (46). So far as instruction, the teacher in such a a context is said to act as "banker," depositing riches into the empty minds of students.
The Social-Culturalists (Social-Constructivists)
Under "culture theory," readers are seen as "socially constructed," yet not without agency, "balanced between determinism and autonomy." Texts are neither "containers" nor, per Expressionists "infinitely pliable." Instead, this school holds it important to view texts as "in use," produced in response to an audience, the times, and social conditions (60).
Movers and Shakers
Most influential to this model are psycholinguists Frank Smith and Kenneth Goodman; reading-writing educators James Britton, Margaret Meek and Harold Rosen; also I.A. Richards, Q.D. Leavis, David Bleich and White & Pritchard.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Week 7, Post 2: Grammar in TDOC and B&P?
How do Discovery of Competence, and Fact, Artifacts, and Counter-facts handle grammar? Is there a place for overt grammar instruction in the two course designs? Do you think students need more grammar/editing/proofreading practice than the two courses provide? What would you add to their courses?
TDOC and B&P part ways on the subject of grammar instruction. TDOC's take is to hope and pray that student writing improves by way of letter writing (handled by teacher No.3!). Simply by corresponding with a teacher who behaves like a peer and co-researcher, it's presumed student writing will tend to imitate the style and substance of the teacher's writing. B&P, on the other hand, dedicate their final chapter in F, A & C to the instruction of error analysis. Largely, this is to be carried out one-on-one with students, though occasionally, too, at the class level.
If one thing's missing from B&P's Chap. 7, it's the extension of error analysis through peer counseling. Why not pair more capable students, after they've had a few "light bulb" moments, with more struggling students, still unable to see the forest for the trees? Of course, it's a dicey scaffolding even for an experienced teacher, but, for basic students whose papers are rampant with errors, peer work could help eliminate some of the more common "first level" errors. For example, I would imagine showing 3-4 of my top students how to very simply look over a paper, find rudimentary issues (boundary issues/periods/commas) and model how to help students find their own errors through minimum invasion or prodding.
TDOC and B&P part ways on the subject of grammar instruction. TDOC's take is to hope and pray that student writing improves by way of letter writing (handled by teacher No.3!). Simply by corresponding with a teacher who behaves like a peer and co-researcher, it's presumed student writing will tend to imitate the style and substance of the teacher's writing. B&P, on the other hand, dedicate their final chapter in F, A & C to the instruction of error analysis. Largely, this is to be carried out one-on-one with students, though occasionally, too, at the class level.
If one thing's missing from B&P's Chap. 7, it's the extension of error analysis through peer counseling. Why not pair more capable students, after they've had a few "light bulb" moments, with more struggling students, still unable to see the forest for the trees? Of course, it's a dicey scaffolding even for an experienced teacher, but, for basic students whose papers are rampant with errors, peer work could help eliminate some of the more common "first level" errors. For example, I would imagine showing 3-4 of my top students how to very simply look over a paper, find rudimentary issues (boundary issues/periods/commas) and model how to help students find their own errors through minimum invasion or prodding.
Week 7, Post: B&P, Chap. 5: Where Does "Significance" in the Reading Come From?
Blog 1: Summarize the key ideas in your assigned chapter. What's important for the class to know? How does it connect with the ideas in chapters 1, 2, and 3? How does it connect with "Discovery of Competence"? How does it connect with the SFSU IRW course? How might these ideas inform your own teaching unit?
The thrust of Chapter Five, "The Dialogical Nature of Basic Reading and Writing," comes, I believe, on p. 142. According to B&P, students aren't "getting" the reading until this "light bulb" moment, when they see a text's "events, characters, experiences do not possess significance or insignificance, but that the student's act of reflexivity confers those attributes." This is not merely re-inventing the wheel in terms of students' reading concepts. In my opinion, it's frankly revolutionary for many teachers. After all, we, too, went to schools and universities and were commanded to "find the main idea" in a passage or "the key theme" in a chapter. And, as writers, don't we saddle ourselves with "providing" information? It's not the simplest philosophical re-tooling, then, for our students, either.
In the B&P course, it's the writing of their autobiographies that establishes students to this commandeering of significance in reading. This is in keeping with the general plan for the course, established in Chapters 1-3 of the book. In Chapter 2, p. 37, the authors explain their vision: "The point of the final set of assignments is to place students' work in the context of professionals." By the introduction of the autobiography project, the students in a B&P course have, already read several major works and studied their methods of analysis. Integrating those ways of thinking into their own autobiographies, "they are in a position to see how the words of another can function in their own arguments..." (38).
If writing their autobiographies gives them the opportunity to further apply techniques of writing and analysis already learned, seeing their work in a professionally bound presentation, encourages them to re-imagine themselves as joining in the academic conversation on a truly scholarly level. Beginning with bolstering his own confidence, this new self-concept offers the student, it could be argued, a virtual psychological re-birth.
Personally, I'm inclined to steal wholesale from B&P all that will fit into my thief's satchel. I can hardly imagine a more fulfilling event than to be involved in nudging students toward this virtual awakening. The implementation of the autobiography as a centerpiece, alone, stands as a master stroke. Of course, two instructors team-teaching this rigorous curriculum makes sense; indeed, for now, I can't quite get my head around how a single teacher on his own can pull it off. But I'm excited by the challenge.
The thrust of Chapter Five, "The Dialogical Nature of Basic Reading and Writing," comes, I believe, on p. 142. According to B&P, students aren't "getting" the reading until this "light bulb" moment, when they see a text's "events, characters, experiences do not possess significance or insignificance, but that the student's act of reflexivity confers those attributes." This is not merely re-inventing the wheel in terms of students' reading concepts. In my opinion, it's frankly revolutionary for many teachers. After all, we, too, went to schools and universities and were commanded to "find the main idea" in a passage or "the key theme" in a chapter. And, as writers, don't we saddle ourselves with "providing" information? It's not the simplest philosophical re-tooling, then, for our students, either.
In the B&P course, it's the writing of their autobiographies that establishes students to this commandeering of significance in reading. This is in keeping with the general plan for the course, established in Chapters 1-3 of the book. In Chapter 2, p. 37, the authors explain their vision: "The point of the final set of assignments is to place students' work in the context of professionals." By the introduction of the autobiography project, the students in a B&P course have, already read several major works and studied their methods of analysis. Integrating those ways of thinking into their own autobiographies, "they are in a position to see how the words of another can function in their own arguments..." (38).
If writing their autobiographies gives them the opportunity to further apply techniques of writing and analysis already learned, seeing their work in a professionally bound presentation, encourages them to re-imagine themselves as joining in the academic conversation on a truly scholarly level. Beginning with bolstering his own confidence, this new self-concept offers the student, it could be argued, a virtual psychological re-birth.
Personally, I'm inclined to steal wholesale from B&P all that will fit into my thief's satchel. I can hardly imagine a more fulfilling event than to be involved in nudging students toward this virtual awakening. The implementation of the autobiography as a centerpiece, alone, stands as a master stroke. Of course, two instructors team-teaching this rigorous curriculum makes sense; indeed, for now, I can't quite get my head around how a single teacher on his own can pull it off. But I'm excited by the challenge.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Week 6, Post 2: TDOC vs B&P
How are the theory and practice of this course similar to and different from "Discovery of Competence"? (How much would these teachers argue with each other if they had to work together to create a course?)
So far as theory, TDOC is bent on using their class to launch their education-as-research model, which may or may not champion the student writer. Like the DOC model, the B&P approach is heavily scaffolded, letting students discover their compositional voices, discovering, too, the power of discovery through personal writings. While the DOC curriculum implementation is more vague, it appears that the strong research side of it tapers off somewhat as the term passes, in favor of more examination of fiction and other genres. In this sense, the B&P platform is similar, eventually moving away from student-as-center-of-the-universe, in favor of more practical college-level studies of fiction, anthropology and psychology. In this way, the B&P plan seems to set the student up for success outside the classroom more successfully, minimizing coddling and maximizing growth.
The DOC approach is much more student-centered throughout, however, as far as can be sussed from the chapters we've read. For example, the DOC ladies wouldn't likely have a set reading list for the whole class, whereas the B&P people would, and it's very teacher-driven in that sense, although students are to pick out four additional books on their own. Bottom line on the application end: B&P students are going to be exhausted in a very healthy way, and truly learn composition (even if it kills them!), while the DOC students will basically have a very nice, organic educational experience and learn how to be ethnologists, even if their writing skills lag far behind their research skills.
Ideally, teachers of either approach will need to have a strong background in Vygotskyian scaffolding and keep it all very student-centric and activity-based, with lecturing cut back to bare bones. In both cases, teachers will need to be selfless Joan of Arcs. So, I think instructors for either model might have more in common than not. For this reason, I don't know that teachers of either school would claw each other to death exactly. On the other hand, I've seen some conventional teachers tear into each other, and it wasn't over ideologies...I believe someone ate the last donut in the teachers' lounge...
So far as theory, TDOC is bent on using their class to launch their education-as-research model, which may or may not champion the student writer. Like the DOC model, the B&P approach is heavily scaffolded, letting students discover their compositional voices, discovering, too, the power of discovery through personal writings. While the DOC curriculum implementation is more vague, it appears that the strong research side of it tapers off somewhat as the term passes, in favor of more examination of fiction and other genres. In this sense, the B&P platform is similar, eventually moving away from student-as-center-of-the-universe, in favor of more practical college-level studies of fiction, anthropology and psychology. In this way, the B&P plan seems to set the student up for success outside the classroom more successfully, minimizing coddling and maximizing growth.
The DOC approach is much more student-centered throughout, however, as far as can be sussed from the chapters we've read. For example, the DOC ladies wouldn't likely have a set reading list for the whole class, whereas the B&P people would, and it's very teacher-driven in that sense, although students are to pick out four additional books on their own. Bottom line on the application end: B&P students are going to be exhausted in a very healthy way, and truly learn composition (even if it kills them!), while the DOC students will basically have a very nice, organic educational experience and learn how to be ethnologists, even if their writing skills lag far behind their research skills.
Ideally, teachers of either approach will need to have a strong background in Vygotskyian scaffolding and keep it all very student-centric and activity-based, with lecturing cut back to bare bones. In both cases, teachers will need to be selfless Joan of Arcs. So, I think instructors for either model might have more in common than not. For this reason, I don't know that teachers of either school would claw each other to death exactly. On the other hand, I've seen some conventional teachers tear into each other, and it wasn't over ideologies...I believe someone ate the last donut in the teachers' lounge...
Week 6, Post 1: B & P to the Rescue
While I enjoyed what felt like a fresh spirit, rooted in sound pedagogy when I read TDOC, I was left with plenty of questions as to the real-world application, esp. how to peel back the scaffolding.
Fact, Artifacts and Counterfacts comes across as a more realistic approach on several different levels. I'll come to that in a bit. For now, I'd like to mention some points that impress me about the B&P program:
1. The goal is crystal clear: a student in this course is going to work is ass off in hopes of learning what it means to really engage with language, with the end goal to move away from heavy scaffolding into the real world, taking the End-of-Review test. To me, this seems like a blending of the best of both worlds: self-discovery through writing, followed by real-world ruminations on anthropology and growing up, followed by the birth pangs of the Big Test and proving yourself.
2. The engaging aspect of the course seems grounded in very workable student-centered activities that allow the student to draw on his own experience. There are plenty of opportunities for the student to use reading and writing in a very personal way, thus learning "what writing is for," in its full potential, yet on a very organic level.
3. Let there be no mistaking: this is a no-bullshit, mother f-ing BOOT CAMP. If some students in the DOC program had a hard time taking it seriously at first, students in the B & P program wouldn't have a moment to even consider that, I feel, if they put half as much time and energy into their work as the teachers expect.
4. The variety of writing is tough, but the teachers seem nurturing. These kids have to write journals and papers and revisions and more revisions. Then they have to write in-class essays on subjects they may know very little about under the duress of a ticking clock. Great. It would probably scare the piss out of some students; it would also scare the "fear of God" into others, so, again, they realize the program means business, but more importantly, that something very real is at stake. Put that together with the amazingly student-centered theme, the personal journaling, the deeply purposeful -- and hugely community-building -- autobiography project, plus the "tough love" tenderness of the prompts ("We'd like you to plan to sit and read..." or "Would you also be sure to..."), and this feels like a once-in-a-lifetime chance to learn and grow, and in a safe, caring environment.
5. On the other hand, this is an adult-world course for adults, taught by adults. Part of the "tough love" aspect is the code of silence, so to speak, where the teachers pose questions for discussion, but consciously stand back and expect students to engage, with the teachers avoiding any coddling of panic-stricken students.
6. Personally, I've found I can face any kind of obstacle, so long as I have a friend or, better still, a mentor to talk me through it. This class has two deeply dedicated mentors giving motivation, insight and feedback through the tough times (as well as the good times).
The program smacks of real world determination, demanding students speak, write and engage at the college level, which is asking a lot, but isn't asking anything beyond what their other courses will be demanding. I feel this is perfectly in keeping with a step-wise de-scaffolding plan. Because of this, and because it's all aimed at real world skills, I much prefer the B & P over the DOC program.
Like most remedial programs, like the DOC program, too, the B&P program sounds super-humanly demanding, first of all, on the teachers, far more than for the students. It's hard to imagine that these team teachers would have a minute for planning or teaching any other course, let alone developing what we call a personal life. The real drawback, then, is that this course would be next to impossible to implement alone, as most of us will never have the luxury of team teaching in the manner.
This would leave a solo teacher strapped with 100% of the remedial students' issues, a dream of 100% implementing this brilliant curriculum, yet only 50% of the time, energy and vision required to pull it off. If these teachers had only a 40% pass rate for their final test, the projection for our single-teacher classes would be dimmer still. Nonetheless, if I could summon the energy and the vision, I would love to be this disciplined, personally, and to put my students through such a boot camp of learning, especially the constant onslaught of different types of reading, writing and discussions. My guess is that the B&P approach will be far more popular with my 709 colleagues because of its real-world relevance.
Fact, Artifacts and Counterfacts comes across as a more realistic approach on several different levels. I'll come to that in a bit. For now, I'd like to mention some points that impress me about the B&P program:
1. The goal is crystal clear: a student in this course is going to work is ass off in hopes of learning what it means to really engage with language, with the end goal to move away from heavy scaffolding into the real world, taking the End-of-Review test. To me, this seems like a blending of the best of both worlds: self-discovery through writing, followed by real-world ruminations on anthropology and growing up, followed by the birth pangs of the Big Test and proving yourself.
2. The engaging aspect of the course seems grounded in very workable student-centered activities that allow the student to draw on his own experience. There are plenty of opportunities for the student to use reading and writing in a very personal way, thus learning "what writing is for," in its full potential, yet on a very organic level.
3. Let there be no mistaking: this is a no-bullshit, mother f-ing BOOT CAMP. If some students in the DOC program had a hard time taking it seriously at first, students in the B & P program wouldn't have a moment to even consider that, I feel, if they put half as much time and energy into their work as the teachers expect.
4. The variety of writing is tough, but the teachers seem nurturing. These kids have to write journals and papers and revisions and more revisions. Then they have to write in-class essays on subjects they may know very little about under the duress of a ticking clock. Great. It would probably scare the piss out of some students; it would also scare the "fear of God" into others, so, again, they realize the program means business, but more importantly, that something very real is at stake. Put that together with the amazingly student-centered theme, the personal journaling, the deeply purposeful -- and hugely community-building -- autobiography project, plus the "tough love" tenderness of the prompts ("We'd like you to plan to sit and read..." or "Would you also be sure to..."), and this feels like a once-in-a-lifetime chance to learn and grow, and in a safe, caring environment.
5. On the other hand, this is an adult-world course for adults, taught by adults. Part of the "tough love" aspect is the code of silence, so to speak, where the teachers pose questions for discussion, but consciously stand back and expect students to engage, with the teachers avoiding any coddling of panic-stricken students.
6. Personally, I've found I can face any kind of obstacle, so long as I have a friend or, better still, a mentor to talk me through it. This class has two deeply dedicated mentors giving motivation, insight and feedback through the tough times (as well as the good times).
The program smacks of real world determination, demanding students speak, write and engage at the college level, which is asking a lot, but isn't asking anything beyond what their other courses will be demanding. I feel this is perfectly in keeping with a step-wise de-scaffolding plan. Because of this, and because it's all aimed at real world skills, I much prefer the B & P over the DOC program.
Like most remedial programs, like the DOC program, too, the B&P program sounds super-humanly demanding, first of all, on the teachers, far more than for the students. It's hard to imagine that these team teachers would have a minute for planning or teaching any other course, let alone developing what we call a personal life. The real drawback, then, is that this course would be next to impossible to implement alone, as most of us will never have the luxury of team teaching in the manner.
This would leave a solo teacher strapped with 100% of the remedial students' issues, a dream of 100% implementing this brilliant curriculum, yet only 50% of the time, energy and vision required to pull it off. If these teachers had only a 40% pass rate for their final test, the projection for our single-teacher classes would be dimmer still. Nonetheless, if I could summon the energy and the vision, I would love to be this disciplined, personally, and to put my students through such a boot camp of learning, especially the constant onslaught of different types of reading, writing and discussions. My guess is that the B&P approach will be far more popular with my 709 colleagues because of its real-world relevance.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Week 5, Post 3: TDOC, Ch. 8: Magical Thinking in "Assessing Competence"
Briefly summarize your assigned jigsaw reading.
It seems entirely justifiable that many of the misgivings voiced in class about the DOC program concern real-world implementation, especially when orchestrated by a single teacher, and particularly in the area of assessment. If the planning and application of the DOC program seemed to demand super-human resources (or simply three full-time professionals, instead of one), the assessment aspect is similarly contextually-rich and, at least on initial perspective, impossibly arduous to pull off.
Assessment for most teachers means a) monitoring and motivating student progress, b) giving students appropriate feedback and c) translating student progress into grades for the student and the school. Kutz, Groden and Zamel re-imagine the assessment process from a more student-centric point of view. Critical to their program is that students and teachers are co-researchers. Teachers are to help monitor and motivate student progress, however, at "no point is the teacher required to transform herself from helper into judge" (161). Moreover, the authors disdain grading because "it interrupts rather than supports the learning process of most writers," giving a false impression of "completion" when the learning process is never really "finished" (157). On the other hand, they recognize the importance of teaching students the process of wrapping up the writing process and the sense of closure.
The Kutz, Groden and Zamel method of assessment is really just an extension of the letter writing begun back in Chapter 6, "Discovering Competence," between Vivian Zamel and students in the writing program (this was, in fact, her sole function in the project: full-time correspondent/assessor). For the student and the teacher, it sounds so simple, so organic and so idyllic, yet too good to be true. Students are to write letters (or emails) to the instructor about class research and the instructor responds. The student's sense of intellectual identity is honored and validated by the teacher's treatment of the student as a peer, since they're both in the same field: research. In this form of assessment, the teacher must be careful to show students that she is learning from them as much as assisting their progress. In this perfect world, students never require lessons on sentence building or mimicry of academic language because they learn it naturally, reading letters from the teacher, and automatically replying to the teacher with echoes of her own vocabulary and her grammar. It's all organic and effortless.
Anyway, it sure looks good on paper.
It seems entirely justifiable that many of the misgivings voiced in class about the DOC program concern real-world implementation, especially when orchestrated by a single teacher, and particularly in the area of assessment. If the planning and application of the DOC program seemed to demand super-human resources (or simply three full-time professionals, instead of one), the assessment aspect is similarly contextually-rich and, at least on initial perspective, impossibly arduous to pull off.
Assessment for most teachers means a) monitoring and motivating student progress, b) giving students appropriate feedback and c) translating student progress into grades for the student and the school. Kutz, Groden and Zamel re-imagine the assessment process from a more student-centric point of view. Critical to their program is that students and teachers are co-researchers. Teachers are to help monitor and motivate student progress, however, at "no point is the teacher required to transform herself from helper into judge" (161). Moreover, the authors disdain grading because "it interrupts rather than supports the learning process of most writers," giving a false impression of "completion" when the learning process is never really "finished" (157). On the other hand, they recognize the importance of teaching students the process of wrapping up the writing process and the sense of closure.
The Kutz, Groden and Zamel method of assessment is really just an extension of the letter writing begun back in Chapter 6, "Discovering Competence," between Vivian Zamel and students in the writing program (this was, in fact, her sole function in the project: full-time correspondent/assessor). For the student and the teacher, it sounds so simple, so organic and so idyllic, yet too good to be true. Students are to write letters (or emails) to the instructor about class research and the instructor responds. The student's sense of intellectual identity is honored and validated by the teacher's treatment of the student as a peer, since they're both in the same field: research. In this form of assessment, the teacher must be careful to show students that she is learning from them as much as assisting their progress. In this perfect world, students never require lessons on sentence building or mimicry of academic language because they learn it naturally, reading letters from the teacher, and automatically replying to the teacher with echoes of her own vocabulary and her grammar. It's all organic and effortless.
Anyway, it sure looks good on paper.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Week 5, Post 2: Nine Lives
Sketch out a 3-week unit for a Kutz, Groden, and Zamel course that meets 3 time a week for 50 minutes per meeting:
You'll want to include pre-reading activities, reading assignments, post-reading activities, brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing/polishing.
day 1: introduce unit
day 2:?
day 3: ?
day 4: ?
day 5: ?
day 6: ?
day 7: ?
day 8: ?
day 9: turn in final draft of 4 page paper
Day 1: Introduction: Preparing for the Interviews
Students interview each other in pairs. Prompt: "My favorite place to go. Where? Why? What do you do there?"
Pre-reading: Students write short responses to questions: What's the difference between the spoken word (they way we speak) and the written word (the way we write)? Group disscusion.
Overview of the direction of the class is presented: the importance of research as a learning tool.
Reading: Students read transcripts of students from previous classes for models of how to make ethnographic transcriptions.
Post-reading: Students discuss the content and form. How does the transcript look compared to most stories we read? What are the differences?
Homework assignment: Students conduct three inteviews (1 family, 1 friend, 1 neighbor), then transcribe their favorite. Prompt: "A Scary Experience."
Day 2: Follow-up to the Interviews
Pre-reading: Students bring in their transcripts of "A Scary Experience." Individually, they write short responses to questions:
a. How did your interview go? Any surprises? Any challenges? What the most memorable moment?
b. How did the transcribing go? Describe your personal method of transcribing. Any surprises? How did transcribing make you pay attention to the spoken word differently than when the first time you heard the interview?
c. After listening closely to the interview, did your feelings about it change? If so, how?
Reading: Students take turns reading their transcripts aloud in small groups.
Post-reading: In small groups, students discuss:
a. After reading your transcription aloud, did your feelings change about the transcription? If so, how?
b. Discuss the difference between your feelings when you first heard the interviewee's account and when you read it aloud in class.
Group disscussion summarizes small group discussion.
Homework: Students answer the questions (above) in a 1-2-page typed paper.
Day 3: Creating Narratives From the Script
Pre-reading: Students again consider and write short response to question from Day 1: How does your transcript look compared to most stories we read?
Reading: Students re-read the narrative written from the student transcript first presented on Day 1.
Post-reading: In small groups, students write short responses to questions: How does the transcript look compared to the finished narrative? What punctuation is in the narrative that might be missing from the transcript? How does this help the reader? Note the paragraph structure in the narrative. How does this help the reader? Which is easier to read? Why? Do you think people think and speak more like the transcript or more like the narrative? How might you account for these differences?
Group discussion summarizes small group discussion.
Homework: 1. Using the student model as an example, students create narratives based on their interview transcriptions (bring 2 extra copies for small upcoming group readings). 2. Students answer the questions (above) in a 1-2-page typed paper.
Day 4: Presenting the Narratives
Pre-reading: Students listen to speakers with different accents and dialects of English (SE journalist, Alabama preacher, Cockney musician, AAVE college student, Latino businessman, etc). Class discussion: How does speech differ from place to place? How can we account for different orientations to spoken English? Is one dialect "better" or "worse" than another? Is it possible that people with non-SE dialects are intelligent and have something worth saying?
Reading: In small groups, students read their transcripts, then their narratives aloud while colleagues read along. Students are reminded that this can make readers feel vulnerable, and to look for positive aspects to praise.
Post-reading: Students, responding to prompts, discuss the two narratives they heard/read: How is the narrative similar or different from the transcript? Why is it different? What limits do you note about written language that you don't find in spoken language? How does the audience "add" to the listening experience in ways that they can't for a written piece? In what ways does the writer address the audience in spoken language? In written language?
Homework: Students answer these questions in 1-2-page typed paper.
Day 5. The Importance of Writing for Standard Discourse
Pre-reading: Students discuss: Why is it necessary to write well in college?
Reading: Students read a poorly written 5-paragraph essay, then they read a much clearer essay on the same subject.
Post-reading: Students discuss: How did you feel when you read the first essay? How could you help this writer to clarify his points? What is the tone of the first essay? Of the second? What vocabulary and grammar is specific to the second essay? Would you prefer to read a textbook by the first author or the second?
Homework: Students compare the two essays by, reponding to the above in 1-2 page typed paper.
Day 6. Professional Presentations
Students take notes on presentations given by 2-3 professionals in the business community (real estate agent, lawyer, corporate executive, for example). Each professional discusses the importance of using the best language possible, both spoken and written, in getting a job and in keeping a job. After the professionals leave, classroom discussion considers: What kind of careers do these people have? What are the benefits of such careers? What are the responsibilities? What kind of career would you like to have? Why would you like that career? Would using the best spoken and written language possible be more important or less important for the career you want?
Homework: Students write 1-2 pages responding to the above questions. Also, students are asked to bring in a topic for their Unit 1 Essay, due Day 9. Suggested themes: The Challenges and Importance in Academic Writing; The Varieties of English Discourse, Spoken and Written.
Day 7. Brainstorming
Students discuss the upcoming Unit 1 Essay, due Day 9. Students discuss their tentative topics and possible support. Students are asked to help cluster ideas for some arbitrary topic, such as, "Women Make the Best Leaders in Politics." In small groups, students practice clustering other topics for possible essays. Students spend the remainder of the class clustering and/or outlining an essay on their chosen topic. With peers, students discuss direction and challenges that may come with their topic and support points.
Homework: Write a rough draft of a 4-page, 5-paragraph essay on chosen topic.
Day 8. Rough Drafts
Students read over former students' rough drafts, then their much improved final drafts. In small groups, students read each others' rough drafts and offer constructive criticism. Students schedule office hour visits with teacher, when possible, for further rough draft discussions.
Homework: Students implement changes and write the final draft.
Day 9. Final Draft/Self-Assessment
Students hand in final draft of essay.
Students write in-class blue book essay (2-3 pages), discussing what they've learned during the unit. How did you learn this? How has the way you learned it helped you to learn? How has it changed your attitude about language use? How do you imagine applying what you've learned outside the class?
You'll want to include pre-reading activities, reading assignments, post-reading activities, brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing/polishing.
day 1: introduce unit
day 2:?
day 3: ?
day 4: ?
day 5: ?
day 6: ?
day 7: ?
day 8: ?
day 9: turn in final draft of 4 page paper
Day 1: Introduction: Preparing for the Interviews
Students interview each other in pairs. Prompt: "My favorite place to go. Where? Why? What do you do there?"
Pre-reading: Students write short responses to questions: What's the difference between the spoken word (they way we speak) and the written word (the way we write)? Group disscusion.
Overview of the direction of the class is presented: the importance of research as a learning tool.
Reading: Students read transcripts of students from previous classes for models of how to make ethnographic transcriptions.
Post-reading: Students discuss the content and form. How does the transcript look compared to most stories we read? What are the differences?
Homework assignment: Students conduct three inteviews (1 family, 1 friend, 1 neighbor), then transcribe their favorite. Prompt: "A Scary Experience."
Day 2: Follow-up to the Interviews
Pre-reading: Students bring in their transcripts of "A Scary Experience." Individually, they write short responses to questions:
a. How did your interview go? Any surprises? Any challenges? What the most memorable moment?
b. How did the transcribing go? Describe your personal method of transcribing. Any surprises? How did transcribing make you pay attention to the spoken word differently than when the first time you heard the interview?
c. After listening closely to the interview, did your feelings about it change? If so, how?
Reading: Students take turns reading their transcripts aloud in small groups.
Post-reading: In small groups, students discuss:
a. After reading your transcription aloud, did your feelings change about the transcription? If so, how?
b. Discuss the difference between your feelings when you first heard the interviewee's account and when you read it aloud in class.
Group disscussion summarizes small group discussion.
Homework: Students answer the questions (above) in a 1-2-page typed paper.
Day 3: Creating Narratives From the Script
Pre-reading: Students again consider and write short response to question from Day 1: How does your transcript look compared to most stories we read?
Reading: Students re-read the narrative written from the student transcript first presented on Day 1.
Post-reading: In small groups, students write short responses to questions: How does the transcript look compared to the finished narrative? What punctuation is in the narrative that might be missing from the transcript? How does this help the reader? Note the paragraph structure in the narrative. How does this help the reader? Which is easier to read? Why? Do you think people think and speak more like the transcript or more like the narrative? How might you account for these differences?
Group discussion summarizes small group discussion.
Homework: 1. Using the student model as an example, students create narratives based on their interview transcriptions (bring 2 extra copies for small upcoming group readings). 2. Students answer the questions (above) in a 1-2-page typed paper.
Day 4: Presenting the Narratives
Pre-reading: Students listen to speakers with different accents and dialects of English (SE journalist, Alabama preacher, Cockney musician, AAVE college student, Latino businessman, etc). Class discussion: How does speech differ from place to place? How can we account for different orientations to spoken English? Is one dialect "better" or "worse" than another? Is it possible that people with non-SE dialects are intelligent and have something worth saying?
Reading: In small groups, students read their transcripts, then their narratives aloud while colleagues read along. Students are reminded that this can make readers feel vulnerable, and to look for positive aspects to praise.
Post-reading: Students, responding to prompts, discuss the two narratives they heard/read: How is the narrative similar or different from the transcript? Why is it different? What limits do you note about written language that you don't find in spoken language? How does the audience "add" to the listening experience in ways that they can't for a written piece? In what ways does the writer address the audience in spoken language? In written language?
Homework: Students answer these questions in 1-2-page typed paper.
Day 5. The Importance of Writing for Standard Discourse
Pre-reading: Students discuss: Why is it necessary to write well in college?
Reading: Students read a poorly written 5-paragraph essay, then they read a much clearer essay on the same subject.
Post-reading: Students discuss: How did you feel when you read the first essay? How could you help this writer to clarify his points? What is the tone of the first essay? Of the second? What vocabulary and grammar is specific to the second essay? Would you prefer to read a textbook by the first author or the second?
Homework: Students compare the two essays by, reponding to the above in 1-2 page typed paper.
Day 6. Professional Presentations
Students take notes on presentations given by 2-3 professionals in the business community (real estate agent, lawyer, corporate executive, for example). Each professional discusses the importance of using the best language possible, both spoken and written, in getting a job and in keeping a job. After the professionals leave, classroom discussion considers: What kind of careers do these people have? What are the benefits of such careers? What are the responsibilities? What kind of career would you like to have? Why would you like that career? Would using the best spoken and written language possible be more important or less important for the career you want?
Homework: Students write 1-2 pages responding to the above questions. Also, students are asked to bring in a topic for their Unit 1 Essay, due Day 9. Suggested themes: The Challenges and Importance in Academic Writing; The Varieties of English Discourse, Spoken and Written.
Day 7. Brainstorming
Students discuss the upcoming Unit 1 Essay, due Day 9. Students discuss their tentative topics and possible support. Students are asked to help cluster ideas for some arbitrary topic, such as, "Women Make the Best Leaders in Politics." In small groups, students practice clustering other topics for possible essays. Students spend the remainder of the class clustering and/or outlining an essay on their chosen topic. With peers, students discuss direction and challenges that may come with their topic and support points.
Homework: Write a rough draft of a 4-page, 5-paragraph essay on chosen topic.
Day 8. Rough Drafts
Students read over former students' rough drafts, then their much improved final drafts. In small groups, students read each others' rough drafts and offer constructive criticism. Students schedule office hour visits with teacher, when possible, for further rough draft discussions.
Homework: Students implement changes and write the final draft.
Day 9. Final Draft/Self-Assessment
Students hand in final draft of essay.
Students write in-class blue book essay (2-3 pages), discussing what they've learned during the unit. How did you learn this? How has the way you learned it helped you to learn? How has it changed your attitude about language use? How do you imagine applying what you've learned outside the class?
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Week 5, Post 1: Five Units of TOPC
Following the program laid out in TDOC by Kutz, Groden and Zamel, what follows is an attempt at imagining a 15-week curriculum of theirs unfolding in a classroom with 3 hours of class per week.
Unit 1. Weeks 1-3. Personal Narratives
Objectives: Students will learn how to conduct ethnographic interviews and transcriptions; students will discuss and write about their findings, noting the functions and rules of written and spoken language.
Students conduct interviews in the community and transcribe them. Classroom discussion revolves around the interviewing and transcription processes, and around comparing oral and written versions of a story.
Student texts include a) their own transcriptions, b) peer transcriptions and c) other ethnographic transcriptions from the field. In small groups, students discuss each others’ papers, noting differences and similarities between peer papers, and between student papers and professional ethnographers. These comparisons include content, vocabulary, syntax, sentence structure, paragraph structure and tone.
Students write one 4-page paper due the third week. Students can choose from one of the following prompts or develop their own (subject to teacher approval): What have you learned about the similarities or differences in spoken and written language in your research project? What are the different purposes of spoken and written language? What are the different rules for spoken vs. written language?
Unit 2. Weeks 4-6. Advertising
Objectives: Students will learn how analyze the spoken and written word in advertisements.
Project A: In small groups, students create their own ad campaigns.
Students watch and listen to pre-recorded videos of TV advertisements. Class discussions revolve around content and persuasive techniques used in ads. Students research and record TV, radio and Web ads using ethnographic methods, then transcribe the ads.
Student texts include a) their own transcriptions, b) peer transcriptions and c) print ads and other published analysis of advertising. In small groups, students discuss each others’ papers, noting differences and similarities between peer papers, and between student papers and professional analysts. These comparisons include content, vocabulary, syntax, sentence structure, paragraph structure and tone.
Students write one 4-page paper due the sixth week. Students can choose from the following one of the following prompts or develop their own (subject to teacher approval): What are the various advertising techniques? What have you learned about the power of advertising techniques? What are the pros and cons of advertising?
Project A: in small groups, students create their own ad campaigns, followed by a 2-page report explaining their choice of advertising techniques.
Unit 3. Weeks 7-9. News Articles
Objectives: Students will learn to analyze the spoken and written word in news media.
Students watch and listen to news reports from TV, radio and the Web; they read news articles from newspapers, magazines and the Web. Class discussions consider content and reporting techniques in the media. Students research and record TV, radio and Web ads using ethnographic methods, then transcribe the ads.
Student texts include a) their own transcriptions, b) peer transcriptions, c) print news stories and d) analysis of the news from published sources.
Students write one 4-page paper due the sixth week. Students can choose one of the following prompts or develop their own (subject to teacher approval): “What are the various techniques journalists use to report the news? Who decides what’s newsworthy? What impact do news media wield today?”
Unit 4. Weeks 10-12. Songs, Poetry and Fiction
Objectives: Students will learn to analyze the spoken and written word in poetry, popular songs and short fiction. Project B: students write one original short story.
Students listen to songs and read poetry and short fiction. Class discussion centers on the message and techniques used in songs, poetry and fiction. Students research and find songs, poetry and short story as well as published critiques of songs, poetry and short stories.
Student texts include a) songs, poetry and short stories, both in class, and those found in their research.
Students write one 4-page paper analyzing two short stories; the paper is due the twelfth week. Students can choose from the following prompts or develop their own (subject to teacher approval): Compare and contrast the poetic devices in the two short stories. How do you think these devices made the stories stronger or weaker?
Project B: students write one original short story (3-7 pages), incorporating poetic techniques discussed in class, followed by a 2-page paper explaining why their use of poetic devices strengthens the short story.
Unit 5. Weeks 13-15. Scholarly Articles
Objectives: Students will learn to analyze the spoken and written word in college-level scholarly discourse.
Students will listen to college lectures. Class discussion centers on the message and language incorporated into college lectures. Students research and and record college lectures, then transcribe them following the ethnographic approach.
Student texts include a) transcriptions of lectures, b) transcriptions of peers, c) scholarly articles.
Students will write one 4-page paper discussing two scholarly articles, analyzing the ways scholarly discourse differs from Standard English in general conversation. The following prompts should be responded to in this paper: How do the authors present their thesis statements? What are their main points? For each paper, discuss the connecting devices. What have you learned from these articles that could benefit your own writing in the future?
Friday, September 20, 2013
Week 4, Blog 4: TDOC, Ch. 6, "Discovering Competence"
I appreciate the jigsaw readings we did for TDOC, especially because this spared me reading some extremely dry material and privileged me with reading Ch. 6 -- from what I could tell, easily the most interesting chapter in the book so far.
Chapter 6, "Discovering Competence," represents the culmination of all the thought and preparation laid out in previous chapters. This is where all the theory is put into action. Here we see Krashen colliding with Piaget, Vygotsky and Brunner. Here the authors turn loose their curriculum on developmental college students (the broken-wing starlings!), transforming the numb, disenfranchised into the invigorated and welcomed by way of ethnography, transforming every student into a little anthropologist/linguist, armed with a tape recorder.
Of course, it's what students do with the interviews and recordings afterward that gives the project true merit. Rather than being spoon-fed little mouthfuls of info to memorize like most remedial students, this group discovers how language works and why it works, noting the differences between the written and spoken word, and understanding how and why the rules that govern it exist to clarify the process.
It strikes me as a tremendously freeing, energizing, fun way to teach and to learn, and I'll be excited to implement some sort of research project like this where the students get jazzed about language from such an organic level.
Of course, just how one moves students into the college mainstream after these delightful "finger painting" exercises remains to be seen. A large portion of the program is directed to developing a curriculum that provides meaningful context for acquisition. The classroom itself is seen, not as a catalyst for joining the intellectual conversation, but as as a killer of inspiration and acquisition, since it strips language of all context and meaning (p. 28-9). Presumably, a program like TDOC is used as a stepping stone for students to acclimate them to the chilly, sterile environment of the classroom? At what point is the student ready to turn from this "mother's breast" to drink a glass of cold milk with colleagues?
Chapter 6, "Discovering Competence," represents the culmination of all the thought and preparation laid out in previous chapters. This is where all the theory is put into action. Here we see Krashen colliding with Piaget, Vygotsky and Brunner. Here the authors turn loose their curriculum on developmental college students (the broken-wing starlings!), transforming the numb, disenfranchised into the invigorated and welcomed by way of ethnography, transforming every student into a little anthropologist/linguist, armed with a tape recorder.
Of course, it's what students do with the interviews and recordings afterward that gives the project true merit. Rather than being spoon-fed little mouthfuls of info to memorize like most remedial students, this group discovers how language works and why it works, noting the differences between the written and spoken word, and understanding how and why the rules that govern it exist to clarify the process.
It strikes me as a tremendously freeing, energizing, fun way to teach and to learn, and I'll be excited to implement some sort of research project like this where the students get jazzed about language from such an organic level.
Of course, just how one moves students into the college mainstream after these delightful "finger painting" exercises remains to be seen. A large portion of the program is directed to developing a curriculum that provides meaningful context for acquisition. The classroom itself is seen, not as a catalyst for joining the intellectual conversation, but as as a killer of inspiration and acquisition, since it strips language of all context and meaning (p. 28-9). Presumably, a program like TDOC is used as a stepping stone for students to acclimate them to the chilly, sterile environment of the classroom? At what point is the student ready to turn from this "mother's breast" to drink a glass of cold milk with colleagues?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Week 4, Post 3: TDOC & Goens
The Discovery of Competence offers a model for language acquisition based on challenging the student to discover the meaning of language by having to use it in real situations. The authors' most brilliant move, in my opinion, is the element of student-centered research. Since these writers know from personal experience the benefits of digging through research, they decided to pull their students into the game; this follows form Shirley Heath's Ways with Words and her ethnographic research in the Carolina mountains. Students are asked to interview friends and family at home, school and in the workplace, studying and writing about the way language is used.
In this way, the TDOC approach shares much in common with Goens' model in that language is studied in real, meaningful contexts, rather than isolated and examined apart from workaday situations. Goens' primary thrust, to integrate reading and writing apprehension together, is achieved through the TDOC model as well, since students are constantly considering the implications of the spoken word vs. the written word; they're forced to grapple with the implications of reading and writing from an almost anthropological perspective, deriving their own conclusions.
In this way, the TDOC approach shares much in common with Goens' model in that language is studied in real, meaningful contexts, rather than isolated and examined apart from workaday situations. Goens' primary thrust, to integrate reading and writing apprehension together, is achieved through the TDOC model as well, since students are constantly considering the implications of the spoken word vs. the written word; they're forced to grapple with the implications of reading and writing from an almost anthropological perspective, deriving their own conclusions.
Week 4, Post 2: What Fits?
The Discovery of Competence's "ethnographic approach" to teaching reading and writing is a paradigm shift, to be sure. The question is: Does their approach fit college classrooms generally?
The authors refuse to accept a curriculum where language acquisition is sacrificed for mere language learning. Like Krashen, they believe real acquisition only occurs in a meaningful context, that is, where a student must use it as a means to function socially. On the contrary, most language learning is broken down into chunks and fed to students by the spoonful; they're memorizing it instead of figuring it out for themselves.
All of this is upside down in terms of the natural process of language acquisition. Toddlers, for example, don't memorize grammar in order to understand their mothers. To get an additional helping of food, the child learns to say "more." In this natural way, language is acquired as a means to an end an not vice versa.
Where most classrooms deal with the abstract study of language sub-units (verbs, nouns, etc), TDOC's approach challenges students to become "ethnographers," studying their own writing and speaking, noting the differences in each, and arriving at generalizations about the rules and functions that underlie them. Thus, TDOC's approach is not learning, but acquisition through research and discovery.
Most teachers of college remedial English don't have the luxury of re-inventing the wheel, which is what these three authors are doing, and what they're proposing that we all do. Most teachers don't have the option of working side-by-side as a team of three brilliant researchers. Most teachers, I fear, often feel less like teachers and more like ranchers, moving the herd from the fieild, into the corral, counting the livestock in the stockyards, obliged to follow in lockstep with the other ranchers. The Discovery of Competence offers an ideal, a ring to reach for, though it's unclear how to get from point A to point B.
The authors refuse to accept a curriculum where language acquisition is sacrificed for mere language learning. Like Krashen, they believe real acquisition only occurs in a meaningful context, that is, where a student must use it as a means to function socially. On the contrary, most language learning is broken down into chunks and fed to students by the spoonful; they're memorizing it instead of figuring it out for themselves.
All of this is upside down in terms of the natural process of language acquisition. Toddlers, for example, don't memorize grammar in order to understand their mothers. To get an additional helping of food, the child learns to say "more." In this natural way, language is acquired as a means to an end an not vice versa.
Where most classrooms deal with the abstract study of language sub-units (verbs, nouns, etc), TDOC's approach challenges students to become "ethnographers," studying their own writing and speaking, noting the differences in each, and arriving at generalizations about the rules and functions that underlie them. Thus, TDOC's approach is not learning, but acquisition through research and discovery.
Most teachers of college remedial English don't have the luxury of re-inventing the wheel, which is what these three authors are doing, and what they're proposing that we all do. Most teachers don't have the option of working side-by-side as a team of three brilliant researchers. Most teachers, I fear, often feel less like teachers and more like ranchers, moving the herd from the fieild, into the corral, counting the livestock in the stockyards, obliged to follow in lockstep with the other ranchers. The Discovery of Competence offers an ideal, a ring to reach for, though it's unclear how to get from point A to point B.
Week 4, Post 1: The Discovery of Competence
As a former ESL adult ed teacher with virtually no pedagogical education, The Discovery of Competence is both intimidating and liberating. Though I'd gone to a handful of workshops and heard Krashen's name dropped, I'm afraid I wasn't hungry enough to dig down deep and find out what "meaningful context" was all about. Besides, I felt I was overworked and underpaid as it was. How to justify additional self-education? On the other hand, it was no secret that the majority of our students in non-Krashen classrooms showed little sign of language acquisition (in spite of plenty of language learning), nor much desire to utilize the bits they'd learned. Clearly, something was flawed in our methodology.
Kutz, Groden and Zamel's book points out that the gross errors in ESL courses can be traced back to the set-up of the average school classroom: teaching is focused on gleaning non-contextualized information as an end in itself, stripping education of all meaning for students. If this is true in general, and if students struggle to find meaning in literacy and composition classes, it's reasoned, then it's time to teach these subjects in meaningful contexts, affording language acquisition, not language learning. Reading this, I felt, on one hand, enlightened (Ah-ha!) and, on the other hand, as if the wind had been knocked out of me.
I love the way they discuss the power of narrative writing. While I've long enjoyed writing, it was hard to say why it seemed to take me out of myself and yet develop my sense of self. The authors quote Gee, who explains that "human beings make sense of their experience...by casting it in narrative form" (40). Their commentary paints a picture the narrative writer then standing back, like a painter, observing how the piece expresses his ideas, and what it needs to express them more fully. Engaging in narrative, students have to "select details from experience and shape them into story...restructuring raw data and finding its pattern and meaning" (51-2).
Their survey of salient research on ways of thinking pertinent to successful narrative construction is illuminating. While working with narrative can develop competence in students, there is a requisite level of mature thinking that may preclude students engaging fully; this may explain why some students who seem capable of writing, fail to do so with depth. What's needed is "adult thinking," or what Piaget calls developing past "childish egocentrism" to the "formal operational" level in order to reason abstractly, particularly when it comes to imagining and writing for an audience.
Chapter Six focuses on the "ethnographic approach" to learning language, which I find fascinating. Far from alienating students for their existing (non-standard) ways of reading and writing, students are given projects for studying their own language, in particular the differences between spoken and written forms, and the discovery of the underlying rules that govern them. Students' own writing pieces, then, are studied as "data," examined for stylistic differences, instead of being judged as right or wrong. (In the margin beside this, I wrote: WOW.)
Again and again, we see why the book is titled The Discovery of Competence. In this context, students who were labeled as lacking the necessary skills or talents -- "academically deficient" -- are "raising academically significant questions about the defining characteristics of a speech situation" (107). This book, along with others like it, represents a major paradigm shift. In an "acquisition-rich" environment, a "delinquent" student transforms into a scholastic star. Perhaps equally important, this re-casts the role of teacher. If recent controversy has colored the conventional teacher as the stubborn, authoritative problem in the situation, this envisions tomorrow's teacher as the adaptable "collaborator"-teacher, and the potential hero of thestory.
As to the application of such a heavily activity-based curriculum in a conventional college classroom, some head scratching is in order. Most community college teachers, for example, are strapped with a very stringent curriculum and its concomitant regimen of assessments. Exactly how Kutz, Groden and Zamel -- or, for that matter, Sugie Goens -- rose to the position politically to be able to move the chess pieces is a topic for another paper. Short of that kind of clout, however, it's hard to imagine the implementation of such a program -- no matter how effective it may be -- either piecemeal or wholesale. Still, the writers' research, passion and commitment is absolutely palatable. Little by little, teachers eager to make a difference will be testing out out these concepts. Given half a chance, I will, too.
Kutz, Groden and Zamel's book points out that the gross errors in ESL courses can be traced back to the set-up of the average school classroom: teaching is focused on gleaning non-contextualized information as an end in itself, stripping education of all meaning for students. If this is true in general, and if students struggle to find meaning in literacy and composition classes, it's reasoned, then it's time to teach these subjects in meaningful contexts, affording language acquisition, not language learning. Reading this, I felt, on one hand, enlightened (Ah-ha!) and, on the other hand, as if the wind had been knocked out of me.
I love the way they discuss the power of narrative writing. While I've long enjoyed writing, it was hard to say why it seemed to take me out of myself and yet develop my sense of self. The authors quote Gee, who explains that "human beings make sense of their experience...by casting it in narrative form" (40). Their commentary paints a picture the narrative writer then standing back, like a painter, observing how the piece expresses his ideas, and what it needs to express them more fully. Engaging in narrative, students have to "select details from experience and shape them into story...restructuring raw data and finding its pattern and meaning" (51-2).
Their survey of salient research on ways of thinking pertinent to successful narrative construction is illuminating. While working with narrative can develop competence in students, there is a requisite level of mature thinking that may preclude students engaging fully; this may explain why some students who seem capable of writing, fail to do so with depth. What's needed is "adult thinking," or what Piaget calls developing past "childish egocentrism" to the "formal operational" level in order to reason abstractly, particularly when it comes to imagining and writing for an audience.
Chapter Six focuses on the "ethnographic approach" to learning language, which I find fascinating. Far from alienating students for their existing (non-standard) ways of reading and writing, students are given projects for studying their own language, in particular the differences between spoken and written forms, and the discovery of the underlying rules that govern them. Students' own writing pieces, then, are studied as "data," examined for stylistic differences, instead of being judged as right or wrong. (In the margin beside this, I wrote: WOW.)
Again and again, we see why the book is titled The Discovery of Competence. In this context, students who were labeled as lacking the necessary skills or talents -- "academically deficient" -- are "raising academically significant questions about the defining characteristics of a speech situation" (107). This book, along with others like it, represents a major paradigm shift. In an "acquisition-rich" environment, a "delinquent" student transforms into a scholastic star. Perhaps equally important, this re-casts the role of teacher. If recent controversy has colored the conventional teacher as the stubborn, authoritative problem in the situation, this envisions tomorrow's teacher as the adaptable "collaborator"-teacher, and the potential hero of thestory.
As to the application of such a heavily activity-based curriculum in a conventional college classroom, some head scratching is in order. Most community college teachers, for example, are strapped with a very stringent curriculum and its concomitant regimen of assessments. Exactly how Kutz, Groden and Zamel -- or, for that matter, Sugie Goens -- rose to the position politically to be able to move the chess pieces is a topic for another paper. Short of that kind of clout, however, it's hard to imagine the implementation of such a program -- no matter how effective it may be -- either piecemeal or wholesale. Still, the writers' research, passion and commitment is absolutely palatable. Little by little, teachers eager to make a difference will be testing out out these concepts. Given half a chance, I will, too.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Week 3, Post 6: Feedback, Please!
What kind of feedback or comments would you like from classmates on your Blog? (Think both of your intellectual growth and your affective experience in the class.)
I welcome feedback that lets me know if I've connected with another student intellectually. Also, I welcome constructive crtiticsm and/or questions that might alert me the possibility of my inadequately addressing the questions. Affectively speaking, it would be nice to know if another human being connects with my rather personal take on the issues. If what I say resonates, I'd love to know about it. If the way I phrased my posting rubbed somebody the wrong way, I like to know that as well. After all, we're all here to learn, share and potentially evoke some sort of reaction or feelings from our colleagues, ideally.
I welcome feedback that lets me know if I've connected with another student intellectually. Also, I welcome constructive crtiticsm and/or questions that might alert me the possibility of my inadequately addressing the questions. Affectively speaking, it would be nice to know if another human being connects with my rather personal take on the issues. If what I say resonates, I'd love to know about it. If the way I phrased my posting rubbed somebody the wrong way, I like to know that as well. After all, we're all here to learn, share and potentially evoke some sort of reaction or feelings from our colleagues, ideally.
Week 3, Post 5: Blog Rubric
Look at the blog grading rubric that we designed in class (posted in the wiki for last week). What tweaks or changes would you make? Then try to flesh out a more specific rubric as follows:
To get a grade of C or above, postings must meet the following criteria....
To get a grade of B or above, postings must meet the following criteria....
To get a grade of A, postings must meet the following criteria...
To Get a C or Above, Postings must:
* address the question/prompt.
* be completed by within in the month assigned.
* engage in a way that summarizes the content of the text.
* be grammatically clear, written within the conventions of paragraphs.
To Get a B or Above, postings must:
* be completed within two weeks of the date assigned.
* engage the text beyond mere analysis, offering personal connection.
* invite limited degree of interest and commentary.
* be relatively free of typos and other proofreading errors (after all, we're supposed to be reaching for AT LEAST as high standards as those we're cultivating and modeling for our students).
To Get an A, postings must:
* be completed within the week assigned.
* engage the text, taking the discussion in a fresh direction.
* be reader-friendly, stimulating commentary.
* be free of proofreading errors to a professional degree.
To get a grade of C or above, postings must meet the following criteria....
To get a grade of B or above, postings must meet the following criteria....
To get a grade of A, postings must meet the following criteria...
To Get a C or Above, Postings must:
* address the question/prompt.
* be completed by within in the month assigned.
* engage in a way that summarizes the content of the text.
* be grammatically clear, written within the conventions of paragraphs.
To Get a B or Above, postings must:
* be completed within two weeks of the date assigned.
* engage the text beyond mere analysis, offering personal connection.
* invite limited degree of interest and commentary.
* be relatively free of typos and other proofreading errors (after all, we're supposed to be reaching for AT LEAST as high standards as those we're cultivating and modeling for our students).
To Get an A, postings must:
* be completed within the week assigned.
* engage the text, taking the discussion in a fresh direction.
* be reader-friendly, stimulating commentary.
* be free of proofreading errors to a professional degree.
Week 3, Post 4: Pros and Cons to the South Plains Syllabus
After you look at the "conventional" remedial course syllabus: In what ways does that course fit with your ideas about how a developmental reading/writing course should be taught? In what ways does it contradict your ideas? How would you modify the syllabus to fit with you own views of how developmental/remedial reading/writing should be taught?
The South Plains College English 0302-201 syllabus looks, sadly, like the typical syllabus one would expect at a typical JC. It meets the bare minimum requirements in that it provides instruction in both reading (sort of) and writing.
However, after reading Goens' articles, based on the successes of the SFSU IRW program, one has to feel sorry for South Plains developmental students. Unlike IRW, the South Plains program does not integrate reading with writing. In fact, there is very little college level reading to challenge these students, the majority of readings a mere 2 pages in length (paltry even by high school standards). Regarding the principle of time, Goens notes that reading and writing are gradual processes, requiring more than a single fall semester to learn; the South Plains course is designed to be squeezed into a single semester compared to the SFSU model that covers a full year. To be fair to the teacher, Joseph Fly, even if his intention were to authentically integrate reading and writing (he notes, if in passing, "In the study of the written word, rarely is writing isolated from reading since these are mirror processes.") nonetheless, he appears hamstrung by the time factor alone.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of the IRW, and the greatest downfall of this average remedial course, is the lack of what Goens calls Academic Membership. The IRW accomplishes this by including students in the intellectual conversation of the general university. Where the South Plains course tends to treat students like juvenile delinquents by punitively chastising them for attendance errors (then it "rewards" them with the "incentive" of skipping the final exam?), and presumably denying them credits for remedial coursework, the IRW offers full credit and, by challenging students with a rigorous college-level curriculum, treats them like the scholars they are.
The South Plains College English 0302-201 syllabus looks, sadly, like the typical syllabus one would expect at a typical JC. It meets the bare minimum requirements in that it provides instruction in both reading (sort of) and writing.
However, after reading Goens' articles, based on the successes of the SFSU IRW program, one has to feel sorry for South Plains developmental students. Unlike IRW, the South Plains program does not integrate reading with writing. In fact, there is very little college level reading to challenge these students, the majority of readings a mere 2 pages in length (paltry even by high school standards). Regarding the principle of time, Goens notes that reading and writing are gradual processes, requiring more than a single fall semester to learn; the South Plains course is designed to be squeezed into a single semester compared to the SFSU model that covers a full year. To be fair to the teacher, Joseph Fly, even if his intention were to authentically integrate reading and writing (he notes, if in passing, "In the study of the written word, rarely is writing isolated from reading since these are mirror processes.") nonetheless, he appears hamstrung by the time factor alone.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of the IRW, and the greatest downfall of this average remedial course, is the lack of what Goens calls Academic Membership. The IRW accomplishes this by including students in the intellectual conversation of the general university. Where the South Plains course tends to treat students like juvenile delinquents by punitively chastising them for attendance errors (then it "rewards" them with the "incentive" of skipping the final exam?), and presumably denying them credits for remedial coursework, the IRW offers full credit and, by challenging students with a rigorous college-level curriculum, treats them like the scholars they are.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Week 3, Post 3: Second Thoughts
The Goens articles lay out the Integrated Reading/Writing Program set in action at SFSU; the second article is an update on the challenges this program has faced, the benefits it provides, and a reflection on the overall debate to eliminate remedial programs at the college level. The program was in part a reaction to legislative plans to eliminate all remedial English at the CSUs, and in part a response to thoughtful research on integrated programs by McCormick, Nelson, Calfee and many others. Politically, it was a manuever to incorporate composition studies with remedial studies, potentially dodging the legislative bullet aimed at remedial programs. It was also an opportunity to experiment with new methodologies to develop a sound and ground-breaking curriculum at a time that demanded creative innovation.
After reading these articles, my opinions shifted somewhat compared to my prior two blogs. While I still need to research and understand the baffling failings of reading and writing education at the secondary level, I'm rethinking my stance in general. My first blog this week expresses how I felt (feel?) about the need for students entering college to be ready for college-level work. Now I see that up to 45% of all CSU Freshman require remedial help, which suggests that the actual situation statewide is far different from the ivory tower high school where I graduated 30+ years ago. Somehow, these today's CSU Freshmen are getting great grades and have great SAT scores and TOEFL scores, yet they need one, sometimes two years of remedial scaffolding. I thought it might have been around 10-20%, but it's nearly half of all students, which indicates it's got to be a systemic issue and something must be done to heal the system.
Rather than focus on the causes of this "cancer," the SFSU English department (some of them anyway) decided to find a cure for the disease on their doorstep by re-imagining the basic reading/writing curriculum, achieving stunning results. One recalls the movie "Stand and Deliver," in which a single high school instructor re-invented his approach to teaching math at an inner-city high school, revolutionizing academic thought about the potential within the secondary classroom. In the same way, our very own English department has chosen to blaze a new trail, and, best of all, their research proves their curriculum works.
After reading these articles, my opinions shifted somewhat compared to my prior two blogs. While I still need to research and understand the baffling failings of reading and writing education at the secondary level, I'm rethinking my stance in general. My first blog this week expresses how I felt (feel?) about the need for students entering college to be ready for college-level work. Now I see that up to 45% of all CSU Freshman require remedial help, which suggests that the actual situation statewide is far different from the ivory tower high school where I graduated 30+ years ago. Somehow, these today's CSU Freshmen are getting great grades and have great SAT scores and TOEFL scores, yet they need one, sometimes two years of remedial scaffolding. I thought it might have been around 10-20%, but it's nearly half of all students, which indicates it's got to be a systemic issue and something must be done to heal the system.
Rather than focus on the causes of this "cancer," the SFSU English department (some of them anyway) decided to find a cure for the disease on their doorstep by re-imagining the basic reading/writing curriculum, achieving stunning results. One recalls the movie "Stand and Deliver," in which a single high school instructor re-invented his approach to teaching math at an inner-city high school, revolutionizing academic thought about the potential within the secondary classroom. In the same way, our very own English department has chosen to blaze a new trail, and, best of all, their research proves their curriculum works.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Week 3, Post 2: What's on the Menu?
After reading the Goen and Gilotte-Troppe paper "Integrating Reading and Writing," the method of integrated instruction for remedial reading and writing, the most intriguing aspect, beside the improved statistical successes, is the individual students' appreciation for the way it "turned on a lightbulb" for them. As to the nuts and bolts of a curriculum for such a course, I would be inclined to draw heavily from this milestone approach.
Personally, I find it stimulating that they were as demanding of their students as they seem to have been, requiring that they engage in self-monitoring and even assessing themselves as part of the grading process. Were I to design a curriculum, I would endeavor to integrate reading and writing, including as wide and challenging range of materials as Goen and Gilotte-Troppe did -- expository, fiction, poetry and hypertext.
By far the most meaningful English courses I've had required me to express myself in a personal manner and to address language as a means to tackle critical thinking. Beyond instilling a sense of purpose in my students, my curriculum would need to challenge them to engage in the intellectual conversation, developing an awareness of purpose, point and audience. If I can do this and leave them with a sense of satisfaction in reading and writing, my curriculum will be meaningful.
Personally, I find it stimulating that they were as demanding of their students as they seem to have been, requiring that they engage in self-monitoring and even assessing themselves as part of the grading process. Were I to design a curriculum, I would endeavor to integrate reading and writing, including as wide and challenging range of materials as Goen and Gilotte-Troppe did -- expository, fiction, poetry and hypertext.
By far the most meaningful English courses I've had required me to express myself in a personal manner and to address language as a means to tackle critical thinking. Beyond instilling a sense of purpose in my students, my curriculum would need to challenge them to engage in the intellectual conversation, developing an awareness of purpose, point and audience. If I can do this and leave them with a sense of satisfaction in reading and writing, my curriculum will be meaningful.
Week 3, Post 1: Who Gets In?
These are tough questions for experienced educators and legislators to grapple with, to say nothing of the lowly neophyte grad student. The questions might be summed up in a question apropos to the filling of the Titanic's lifeboats: "Who gets in?"
Key to the filling of the college "lifeboat" is whether the student brings the requisite skills to row his own boat. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be an infinite supply of lifeboats and endless space in each one. That is, if we place the highest premium on inclusivity. But certainly there is a point of diminishing returns on most things, and college education inclusivity might be one of them. Just as I-Pads are esteemed in part because of their price and partly for their utilitarian value, graduation from an academic institution carries weight because of a) the difficulty to get in and b) the usefulness of the education it offers. If I-Pads suddenly dropped in price to $1 each, no doubt their esteem would drop with the price. Similarly, if unqualified students are permitted to enter college, or, more problematic, continue through normal coursework after failing Subject A, the general standards of that school's education stands to diminish, devaluing the school's reputation. In a short time, while more students might be entering that school, their diplomas would become a devalued currency.
This said, when it comes to English skills, what's fair for a college to expect of students who enter? Indeed, why, one might ask, should students be held responsible for any mastery of the language at all, whether it be listening, speaking, reading, writing or grammar? Certainly a good number of students enter with a great proficiency in their first languages. Why bother with English if they plan to return, as some do, to their first language neighborhoods, to their native countries to build their careers?
Fair enough, but how shall we instruct them? SFSU, for example, has dozens of foreign languages spoken on campus. Would it be feasible to teach each student in his own first language? Actually, as it stands, no, but eventually, if all classes went online for example, yes. But then, that SFSU would be a very different institution. If students want online programs, they can be found. Rather, it seems probable that a college like SFSU is popular today in part because it's a solid education in, among other things, English skills. Indeed, students come to American universities to develop those English skills because such skills, in themselves, are highly marketable in today's job search.
But first students need a minimum level of English proficiency in order to function in courses across the curriculum. This is why students are tested on SAT English abilities, and why foreign students are tested in the TOEFL. (As to whether these tests are sufficient for measuring a student's capacity to succeed at the college level, those are questions for another forum.) Bottom line, I believe we must agree that each student ought to arrive with skills that equip him to study (if not excel) at the college level. These skills include ample vocabulary, grammar, listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. They need to understand their professors and they need to be able to converse in discussion sections. If there are borderline students whose skills need fine tuning, then they ought to be given the chance to catch up to speed, so to speak. As it is, such students are now given a full year to do so with the assistance of tutors provided free by the school itself. Some might argue that this is too much time, others might say it's not nearly enough.
Certainly it might be said that there is an undue amount of consideration placed on reading and writing at the college level, and that this gives foreign students an edge over many students raised in this country who grew up in homes where English was not the first language. This group, sometimes called Generation 1.5, tends to come from lower income neighborhoods with poorer schools where language skills like writing (indeed, some would say, education as a whole) is not emphasized. Generation1.5, some say, represents the new America and, as such, deserves every chance to succeed, both for their sake and for the benefit of the country as a whole.
As far as English skills, Generation 1.5 brings a knowledge of spoken English which foreign students can hardly match. Yet these skills are scarcely rewarded; indeed, some would say they're ignored in favor of focusing, instead, on what they lack, namely writing proficiency. Ironically, as a useful skill beyond graduation, how many students will be constructing meaningful essays? On the other hand, according to the Liberal Arts tradition, writing and the language arts as a whole are vital because they develop the student's intellectual depth and permit him to enter into the the intellectual conversation. More importantly, such skills, it's said, develop not mere rhetors but independent thinkers, the cornerstone of democracy both here and abroad.
Ultimately, to admit students lacking college level English proficiency does the greatest disservice, not to the institution, nor to native English speaking colleagues, but to those struggling students themselves. A college education is an expensive gift these days, both in terms of time and finance. How just is it to admit students who show insufficient skills to keep up with the regimen? To offer remedial students a full year to come up to speed seems fair enough, if not generous.
Key to the filling of the college "lifeboat" is whether the student brings the requisite skills to row his own boat. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be an infinite supply of lifeboats and endless space in each one. That is, if we place the highest premium on inclusivity. But certainly there is a point of diminishing returns on most things, and college education inclusivity might be one of them. Just as I-Pads are esteemed in part because of their price and partly for their utilitarian value, graduation from an academic institution carries weight because of a) the difficulty to get in and b) the usefulness of the education it offers. If I-Pads suddenly dropped in price to $1 each, no doubt their esteem would drop with the price. Similarly, if unqualified students are permitted to enter college, or, more problematic, continue through normal coursework after failing Subject A, the general standards of that school's education stands to diminish, devaluing the school's reputation. In a short time, while more students might be entering that school, their diplomas would become a devalued currency.
This said, when it comes to English skills, what's fair for a college to expect of students who enter? Indeed, why, one might ask, should students be held responsible for any mastery of the language at all, whether it be listening, speaking, reading, writing or grammar? Certainly a good number of students enter with a great proficiency in their first languages. Why bother with English if they plan to return, as some do, to their first language neighborhoods, to their native countries to build their careers?
Fair enough, but how shall we instruct them? SFSU, for example, has dozens of foreign languages spoken on campus. Would it be feasible to teach each student in his own first language? Actually, as it stands, no, but eventually, if all classes went online for example, yes. But then, that SFSU would be a very different institution. If students want online programs, they can be found. Rather, it seems probable that a college like SFSU is popular today in part because it's a solid education in, among other things, English skills. Indeed, students come to American universities to develop those English skills because such skills, in themselves, are highly marketable in today's job search.
But first students need a minimum level of English proficiency in order to function in courses across the curriculum. This is why students are tested on SAT English abilities, and why foreign students are tested in the TOEFL. (As to whether these tests are sufficient for measuring a student's capacity to succeed at the college level, those are questions for another forum.) Bottom line, I believe we must agree that each student ought to arrive with skills that equip him to study (if not excel) at the college level. These skills include ample vocabulary, grammar, listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. They need to understand their professors and they need to be able to converse in discussion sections. If there are borderline students whose skills need fine tuning, then they ought to be given the chance to catch up to speed, so to speak. As it is, such students are now given a full year to do so with the assistance of tutors provided free by the school itself. Some might argue that this is too much time, others might say it's not nearly enough.
Certainly it might be said that there is an undue amount of consideration placed on reading and writing at the college level, and that this gives foreign students an edge over many students raised in this country who grew up in homes where English was not the first language. This group, sometimes called Generation 1.5, tends to come from lower income neighborhoods with poorer schools where language skills like writing (indeed, some would say, education as a whole) is not emphasized. Generation1.5, some say, represents the new America and, as such, deserves every chance to succeed, both for their sake and for the benefit of the country as a whole.
As far as English skills, Generation 1.5 brings a knowledge of spoken English which foreign students can hardly match. Yet these skills are scarcely rewarded; indeed, some would say they're ignored in favor of focusing, instead, on what they lack, namely writing proficiency. Ironically, as a useful skill beyond graduation, how many students will be constructing meaningful essays? On the other hand, according to the Liberal Arts tradition, writing and the language arts as a whole are vital because they develop the student's intellectual depth and permit him to enter into the the intellectual conversation. More importantly, such skills, it's said, develop not mere rhetors but independent thinkers, the cornerstone of democracy both here and abroad.
Ultimately, to admit students lacking college level English proficiency does the greatest disservice, not to the institution, nor to native English speaking colleagues, but to those struggling students themselves. A college education is an expensive gift these days, both in terms of time and finance. How just is it to admit students who show insufficient skills to keep up with the regimen? To offer remedial students a full year to come up to speed seems fair enough, if not generous.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Benefits of Activating the Active Reader
It seems the theory behind teaching the Active Reader is less important than the practical payoff, as far as the reader is concerned. However, from what I learned in class today, and from Katz's essay in Writing on Writing ("Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively"), we study Teaching to the Active Reader only in part to teach reading. The other aspect, as Mark implied today, is that, by teaching structured reading, we train readers to become structured writers. By making our students conscious of their own reading, and of the various parts of an essay, they have a greater perspective of the potential for communication in such a piece. Thus, potentially, they're getting groomed for thinking about Point, Purpose and Audience. The last point is especially driven home via Active Reading, as the reader is made to understand his role -- the Audience (what Kinneavy calls the Decoder) in the reading/writing process.
As to how to instruct the Active Reader about the concepts and the implementation, the answer to both is to show, rather than tell. Thus, before reading, the reader is asked to consider his habits of selecting a text, making inferences about it from the title, headers and photos, and to anticipate what's coming. Next, the reader is asked to be conscious about how his pre-existing knowledge helps frame the reading, how his reading experience orients him as he reads through the piece; he's asked to note in which passages he tends to speed up and where he tends to slow down and mull things over. After reading, the reader is asked to reflect on the passage he's read; he's also asked to what degree he's impelled to read additionally on this subject, or to discuss it with friends or colleagues. By becoming conscious of these techniques, the Active Reader can become more conscious of the role he plays in interacting with the text. This consciousness alone has the potential to empower him, motivate him to read, since he's "in the driver's seat." Beyond this, as he becomes aware of the power of Audience, he prepares himself for addressing such and audience in his own compositions.
As to how to instruct the Active Reader about the concepts and the implementation, the answer to both is to show, rather than tell. Thus, before reading, the reader is asked to consider his habits of selecting a text, making inferences about it from the title, headers and photos, and to anticipate what's coming. Next, the reader is asked to be conscious about how his pre-existing knowledge helps frame the reading, how his reading experience orients him as he reads through the piece; he's asked to note in which passages he tends to speed up and where he tends to slow down and mull things over. After reading, the reader is asked to reflect on the passage he's read; he's also asked to what degree he's impelled to read additionally on this subject, or to discuss it with friends or colleagues. By becoming conscious of these techniques, the Active Reader can become more conscious of the role he plays in interacting with the text. This consciousness alone has the potential to empower him, motivate him to read, since he's "in the driver's seat." Beyond this, as he becomes aware of the power of Audience, he prepares himself for addressing such and audience in his own compositions.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Strategies for Myself and for Teaching Challenged Readers
Struggling through "A Historical Perspective," I was amazed and baffled that difficult terms were only superficially clarified, and were soon supplanted by more and more difficult terms. At length, I realized that I'd need to come back and read it a second time (which helped enormously), so I underlined phrases that seemed important and wrote questions in the margins. For example, on pp. 34-5, when the authors speak about a reading process that tries to emulate Skinner's "analysis that explained and controlled the behavior of animals," in the margin, I wrote, FOR EXAMPLE? Proceeding through the text, I became aware that the writers' intent was a cursory review of the competing schools of literary research, not a more typical work where the reader is treated to examples and details. In order to try to keep track of these vaguely outlined "camps," I wrote notes in the margins, for example, on p. 37: BEHAVIORISTS VS. MENTALISTS and TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM-UP. These helped me keep in mind key points when I read the piece again. Completing the graphic organizer, courtesy of Mark, made everything much clearer and much more meaningful.
The background knowledge I brought to reading "A Historical Perspective" consists of a course in Psych 101 (summer 2011), which I dimly recall as presenting an introduction to psychology, including a delineation between cognitive, neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic. Of course, I've been a reader myself for years now, and I was somewhat able to draw from my own reading experience to consider to what extent this text made sense, or resonated with me as a reader. (Not a lot.)
My
strategies and cognitive processes, i.e, how I muddled through it all,
consisted of trying hard, taking notes per the above, feeling very
tired, dozing off, dozing off very deeply, waking up, feeling quite
guilty that I wasn't succeeding with my cognitive processes, and
resolving to wake up the next day and try again with a fresh start.
With the second read-through, I found Mark's graphic organizer was the
perfect means to help me pick the most relevant bits and outline them so
as to make more sense of the whole experience.
Monday, September 2, 2013
"A Historical Perspective" 2.0
If you happened to have read my other blog on this same paper, you know I was reacting pretty emotionally. Here, I'll speak to the Blog #4 assignment more fully.
Essentially, it's an overview of five schools of literary research, from 1950 to the present. Conditioned Learning corresponds to Skinner's theory of conditioned response. Reading was to be broken down into its basic elements; thus, phonics were taught to help students "sound out" words. Natural Learning said language acquisition is a natural act, and should be integrated with other language teaching, that is, listening and speech. Additionally, learning, they said, must be taught in meaningful context, not drills, such as phonics was often taught. Information Processing gave credence to the reader's prior knowledge, and said learning was only a question of modifying what the learner already knew. In reading this was promoted via summarization, mapping, self-questioning and predicting. The Sociocultural movement emphasized that learning was not an individual process, but depended heavily on context. Reading, then, was most effective when taught in "cooperative" environments such as small groups. The current, most predominant school, called Engaged Learning, purports to wed Information Processing with the Sociocultural camp. Here, the locus of learning is the individual and that individual in the context of the group.
Reading this paper led to great disappointment (see my other blog "Head Scratching"). In hindsight, this was because I assumed that, since I'm in a teacher training program, the text we were given was intended as some kind of practical manual. Upon reflection, my assumption was wrong; it now seems intended as a way to help us experience what our challenged students must sometimes feel like when reading (unduly) difficult material.
The background knowledge I brought to this effort consists of a course in Psych 101 (summer 2011), which I dimly recall as presenting an introduction to psychology, including a delineation between cognitive, neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic. Of course, I've been a reader myself for years now, and I was somewhat able to draw from my own reading experience to consider to what extent this text made sense, or resonated with me as a reader. (Not a lot.)
On the first pass of this article, I began eagerly, but soon found myself wading waste-deep through thick, muddy waters. Aside from the very clear summary, "Emergent Premises," (p. 55-9), which, I believe, the common man (or woman) could understand, the body of the paper is so full of dense, barely defined vocabulary, it would appear the target audience is anyone except the common man (or woman). On one hand, I find it flattering that the authors presume I'm privy to their body of knowledge; on the other hand, because I'm not, and because they make little effort to assist, frustration ensues. I know that, to excel in a course, I need to be passionate about it, and to be passionate, I need to, first, understand it. As I read, I kept hoping the vocabulary would be explained more clearly. My confusion gave way to self-criticism, alienation, fear of failure and an accompanying anxiety. It occurred to me that, if this was any indication of my capacity for success in this program, I might need to reconsider my career direction.
Continuing, I was amazed and baffled that difficult terms were only superficially clarified, and were soon supplanted by more and more difficult terms. It became clear that I'd need to come back and read it a second time (which helped enormously), so I underlined phrases that seemed important and wrote questions in the margins. For example, on pp. 34-5, when the authors speak about a reading process that tries to emulate Skinner's "analysis that explained and controlled the behavior of animals," in the margin, I wrote, FOR EXAMPLE? Proceeding through the text, I became aware that the writers' intent was a cursory review of the competing schools of literary research, not a more typical work where the reader is treated to examples and details. In order to try to keep track of these vaguely outlined "camps," I wrote notes in the margins, for example, on p. 37: BEHAVIORISTS VS. MENTALISTS and TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM-UP. These helped me keep in mind key points when I read the piece again. Again, completing the graphic organizer, courtesy of Mark, made everything much clearer and much more meaningful.
Essentially, it's an overview of five schools of literary research, from 1950 to the present. Conditioned Learning corresponds to Skinner's theory of conditioned response. Reading was to be broken down into its basic elements; thus, phonics were taught to help students "sound out" words. Natural Learning said language acquisition is a natural act, and should be integrated with other language teaching, that is, listening and speech. Additionally, learning, they said, must be taught in meaningful context, not drills, such as phonics was often taught. Information Processing gave credence to the reader's prior knowledge, and said learning was only a question of modifying what the learner already knew. In reading this was promoted via summarization, mapping, self-questioning and predicting. The Sociocultural movement emphasized that learning was not an individual process, but depended heavily on context. Reading, then, was most effective when taught in "cooperative" environments such as small groups. The current, most predominant school, called Engaged Learning, purports to wed Information Processing with the Sociocultural camp. Here, the locus of learning is the individual and that individual in the context of the group.
Reading this paper led to great disappointment (see my other blog "Head Scratching"). In hindsight, this was because I assumed that, since I'm in a teacher training program, the text we were given was intended as some kind of practical manual. Upon reflection, my assumption was wrong; it now seems intended as a way to help us experience what our challenged students must sometimes feel like when reading (unduly) difficult material.
The background knowledge I brought to this effort consists of a course in Psych 101 (summer 2011), which I dimly recall as presenting an introduction to psychology, including a delineation between cognitive, neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic. Of course, I've been a reader myself for years now, and I was somewhat able to draw from my own reading experience to consider to what extent this text made sense, or resonated with me as a reader. (Not a lot.)
On the first pass of this article, I began eagerly, but soon found myself wading waste-deep through thick, muddy waters. Aside from the very clear summary, "Emergent Premises," (p. 55-9), which, I believe, the common man (or woman) could understand, the body of the paper is so full of dense, barely defined vocabulary, it would appear the target audience is anyone except the common man (or woman). On one hand, I find it flattering that the authors presume I'm privy to their body of knowledge; on the other hand, because I'm not, and because they make little effort to assist, frustration ensues. I know that, to excel in a course, I need to be passionate about it, and to be passionate, I need to, first, understand it. As I read, I kept hoping the vocabulary would be explained more clearly. My confusion gave way to self-criticism, alienation, fear of failure and an accompanying anxiety. It occurred to me that, if this was any indication of my capacity for success in this program, I might need to reconsider my career direction.
Continuing, I was amazed and baffled that difficult terms were only superficially clarified, and were soon supplanted by more and more difficult terms. It became clear that I'd need to come back and read it a second time (which helped enormously), so I underlined phrases that seemed important and wrote questions in the margins. For example, on pp. 34-5, when the authors speak about a reading process that tries to emulate Skinner's "analysis that explained and controlled the behavior of animals," in the margin, I wrote, FOR EXAMPLE? Proceeding through the text, I became aware that the writers' intent was a cursory review of the competing schools of literary research, not a more typical work where the reader is treated to examples and details. In order to try to keep track of these vaguely outlined "camps," I wrote notes in the margins, for example, on p. 37: BEHAVIORISTS VS. MENTALISTS and TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM-UP. These helped me keep in mind key points when I read the piece again. Again, completing the graphic organizer, courtesy of Mark, made everything much clearer and much more meaningful.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
"Green Eggs and Ham"
My Grandma Croom was a teacher in a one-room school house in Oklahoma during the Depression. My folks split up when I was five and Grandma looked after me in more ways than one, including very patiently reading with me every time I came to visit. I think my father felt a bit guilty about the divorce and, as a sort of peace offering, he bought my sister and me a series of books, including "Green Eggs and Ham" and "Go, Dog, Go." This was the glorious beginning of my life as a reader. It taught me a love for the written word, simple poetic repetition, and Dr. Seuss' irreverent humor. Later, I remember reading classes in First Grade, sounding out the phonics. I remember "Weekly Reader," a monthly "newspaper" with little grammar games and interesting stories. Extra-curricular reading was encouraged in our schools, and I recall reading the Narnia books when I was twelve; I recall falling in love with the beauty of words from the simplicity of John Steinbeck and the grandeur of Shakespeare. My deep, dark confession is that, though we were taught speed reading in the Ninth Grade, almost immediately afterward, I seemed to have lost the knack. As a result, a heavy reading load in college was a bit intimidating. As an ESL teacher for 25 years, I believe I was able to capitalize on this "learning handicap," empathizing with many students who struggled in this and in other ways.
The Shorter Winding Road
When I was recently laid off from a 12-year position teaching ESL --
along with the rest of our adult ed center -- I thought back to my
original motivation to write and to teach. My most memorable undergrad course was Rhetoric 101. Along with Eng. 101 and Comp. Lit., also offered at Cal, our writing course shared the goal of "freshman writing course," but, where the others sought to essentially direct students through the 5-paragraph essay, Rhet. 101 schooled us in the "art of persuasion," that is, the argumentative essay. To reach that destination, we had to engage in lively debates and learn critical thinking. I look forward to working with students on the remedial level (not entirely new territory after ESL) as well as the "art of persuasion" level. The SFSU Comp MA looks to be the best path to that goal.
"A Historical Perspective" (Head Scratching)
I'm embarrassed to say I'm more than a bit intimidated reading "A Historical Perspective..." by Alexander and Fox. It's a very ambitious paper, yet it tries so hard to skim over the surface and give a concise overview, that, to me at least, it comes up short on crucial details. As an absolute novice regarding this mountain of research, it's a struggle to maintain interest in the various schools of thought contributing to the study that is Comp Studies. We barely get a solid definition of the behaviorists, the mentalists, etc., when they're whisked away by a new decade and a new group that utterly ignores the forgoing research, proposing their own new Gospel According to ______ (fill in the blank). As a writer and as a reader, I can only surmise that Alexander and Fox assumed their audience was adequately familiar the various groups; this would explain the brisk and superficial discussion on each school. From my humble standpoint, I wish I knew more about each group and its ideas. I have a hunch such a paper would be far more interesting and far more practical to a teacher training program like ours.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)