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.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)