Enforced Educational Schizophrenia” LOL, LOL, LOL!!!`

This week’s readings were informative, but several seemed slightly outdated. Such is the nature of the technology beast I suppose. Just as we begin to discover, think about, write about, reflect upon, and understand some new technology or technological context, something changes. I can’t imagine it’s really even possible for a book (a textbook in particular) to keep up with the constant changes occurring seemingly overnight.

Many of the assertions proffered in the Moran article “linked” me back to a book I read last summer, entitled The Dumbest Generation or Don’t Trust Anyone Under Thirty. www.dumbestgenerationwww.thedumbestgeneration.com This book, written by a Cambridge Scholar, presents a thorough and seemingly well supported discussion about our students and their use of technology. The primary argument presented in the book is that despite our (relatively successful – at least in my experience) intentions and efforts to make access to technology equally available to all students, our students have failed to do their part and use the technology made available to research, and expand and enrich, their knowledge bases. Instead, the author purports, our students have done quite the opposite and are using the technology to “cocoon” themselves into tight little social networks, building virtual walls that shield them from and blind them to the world in which they live. Moran argues that if we are to assume that “technology improves student learning,” then assuring access and teaching students how to use it are our goals as educators. So, here we are years later, and I think it’s pretty safe to say we’ve spent tons and tons of money, but are seeing little return on our investment, at least in terms of academic gains. That leads me to ask myself why my students who are by most standards technologically literate, don’t know what key terms to type into the google search bar if trying to locate a professional organization on their field. Or, why they don’t know what “evaluate the credibility” of a site means, or why they don’t know what Publisher is, or how to safely save their work for efficient retrieval. They think grammar/spell check is the bottom line, end all to be all god of writing correctness, despite the fact that it is highly flawed, has a vocabulary equivalent to that of an 8^th grader ( I read that in an article I cannot locate - ugh!), and is not familiar with the specialized vocabulary of their Career and Technical areas of specialty.  I could go on (of course! LOL!), but.... So, now I’m compelled to think that WE, teachers, have failed somewhere (jump on the bandwagon, right?). On page 207 Moran tells us that whether we like it or not, it’s our job to read the research, learn the technology, and TEACH our students how to use it for (I’m guessing here) academic purposes and not simply social networking. I teach 10^th and 12 graders, and I mourn the fact that I must teach otherwise techno-savvy students how to perform basic word processing functions each year before we can even begin typing papers. These students are on Facebook, have ipods, and all kinds of other techno-tools, but are simply not accustomed to using them for academic pursuits. Maybe it’s not the actual teachers, but the archaic rules and policies in some of our schools, forbidding and making impossible the use of email in/from school, or blocking most of the sites that would be “hits” during a research query. I actually had to ask to have Purdue Owl unblocked this year so my students could use it as an MLA resource. How can I fault them for not knowing and understanding how to read and navigate the site, spending two periods showing them how, if they can’t access it from school? As much as Moran cites wealth (or lack of) as an issue for accessibility, I contend we have a more serious problem with administrators who are uninformed and fearful, and teachers of the same, who refuse to allow technology into their classrooms and to teach students how to use school/academic technology for its intended purpose – to enlighten and enrich the learner and learning process!

I appreciated the Diana George article for the simple fact that I have tried a multi-modal project in Writing and Rhetoric class before, and she definitely offered some insight into how I can work on improving that project and why I would want to. I also thought she made an important statement about the role of the teacher, charging us to help students be critical, as well as enthusiastic, consumers of the newer forms of  “text.”  I found the historical perspectives helpful, but they made ME feel outdated, as I recall writing papers about these evolving issues and trends in the field way back during undergrad (eeeeks!!).

Miller and Shepherd provided a very interesting history of the evolution of the blog as a genre. I was repeatedly surprised during my reading of this (and other previous articles) that the authors didn’t reference Deborah Dean. She authored Genre Theory a few years ago (published by NCTE) www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2988 .Much of the discussion in the article was mirrored in Dean’s book, but was presented in a teacher –friendly format. That book revolutionized my understanding of the term genre. I also liked the section on Kairos, an idea I never did quite grasp during undergrad. The examples Miller and Shepherd provided served to make its meaning slightly more clear for me. I also loved that they shared the website for Kairos. One of my undergrad professors frequently shared this site with us, and I had completely forgotten about it until this article. I definitely plan to check it out and see what I can glean.  The sections on ancestral genres and etymology were also interesting. I ‘m not quite a history buff (although I do find it useful and fun to know), but I AM a journaler. I was unable to decide if I agreed with Elbow or Mallon in regards to the differences/similarities between diaries and journals.

The common thread I found I all the articles this week was the fact that, as teachers, we must constantly change too. Change is often good, but too much at once, without thorough reading of the research, some writing and reflection, could result in a definite case of "Enforced Educational Schizophrenia" as we endeavor to occupy all our roles well and do the very best we can for each of our uniquely situated students.

I Loooooove My Job, Tom Corbett

Two of the readings this week really resonated with me. First, the Lynn chapter on fluency was just too good for words – right up my alley! Each turn of the page offered a new strategy to try in my classroom, for yet another reason. I found the explanation of how children acquire language informative and appealing, both to my senses as a teacher and a parent. When considering the type of learning environment proffered by Lynn on page 166, I was smitten. What teacher wouldn’t find such a nurturing, family – like learning community enchanting? I am in complete agreement that we need to immerse our students in language, in reading and writing, and speaking and listening, if we hope to assist them in developing as effective readers, writers, speakers, and listeners. Lynn also speaks to embracing the “mistakes” we all make as we learn, and using them as an opportunity to laugh together, and learn together. That being said, I also take my job as role model seriously and realize that for some students, our classroom may constitute one of their few opportunities to engage in academic discourse (although I must admit, it is often pseudo – academic in nature!) on a regular basis. Thus, the expectations are that even though we can have fun with the language, speaking in dialects, etc. at times, the base language used in our classroom is somewhat more formal and generally peppered with vocabulary terms we have studied – hence my relation to Quintilian’s assertion regarding nursemaids. J  

  

            

The number one suggestion Lynn gives for teaching to improve writing fluency is to write often for a variety of audiences. I must admit, I struggle with the variety of audiences aspect. Although my students have a few opportunities to write for people outside the classroom each year, really, deep down, we all know their peers and I are their primary audience for most of their pieces. How can I provide them other authentic audiences more often?

           

Beyond the plethora of lesson ideas gleaned and evoked by the reading of this chapter, I also found some possible implications for curriculum. Several other teachers and I bemoan the assigned grammar concepts included on each semester’s curriculum map, and have often sought ways around teaching them, in a specific order, in a specific quarter. Lynn’s description of error analysis prompted me to consider the possibility of using error analysis and targeted instructional response as a possible replacement. I am considering the design of a process/procedure I can use (first in my own classroom) that would document my findings from completing an error analysis, as well as my instructional response to the findings, at least once per quarter per student. It seems like it could be a bit of work, but I can imagine how my grammatical repertoire would grow (each year the targeted response becoming a bit easier with regular tweaking) and how my students would benefit from learning specific strategies relevant to improving their own writing, as opposed to the blanket approach currently being used. As a team, we could look for the logic underlying the mistakes and plan a course of action - how ideal. Hmmm...

            

Okay, I lied. My post is already more than lengthy, so I’m not going to cover the Brodkey article, except to say that I LOVED it, and it made me cry! (I am a true empath, or “emotion personified,” as one professor so sweetly informed me a few summers back during the ISI.) I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to discuss in class! J  Oh, wait – did I mention how I LOVE the imitation exercise on page 184 (Lynn again)? I’m TOTALLY using it this week with my seniors, as they create brochures using content from a mini-research project. Oh, and.... J

            I <3 my job! <3 <3 <3 (DESPITE Corbett and his infinitely growing pile of B.S.!)

            

Grammar Wars

Grammar Wars

            Okay, so this is getting just a bit ridiculous – decades ago, we found a more effective way to think about and teach writing; a HUNDRED years ago, we found that teaching grammar (as most of us know it) is wasted time and far more frustrating than need be. YET, we continue to disservice our students and bang our heads off brick walls wondering why they didn’t get it, even though we spent weeks and weeks teaching them the grammatical concepts and writing skills they should have mastered in elementary school. What is the deal? A few weeks ago we compared teaching to medicine. If a doctor continued to prescribe an obsolete drug for a life threatening condition, despite decades, or even a century, of trials and research to the contrary, what would happen to that doctor? Would he/she not be called upon to answer to someone and be expected to get with the program or get out of the practice? So often I gripe and complain about the testing, the standardization, the loss of autonomy currently transforming the field of education. Yet, week after week, reading after reading, I ask myself how we as a profession can be allowed such inaction at such substantial cost to our students and our society.

            I have been fighting the “Grammar War” in my own school since I began teaching. I do not by any means suggest I know the best methods for teaching what our students need to be/come literate, functioning, contributing members of our increasingly global society, but I do know that for many students, in many schools, the disservice being done them boils down to being a matter of teacher choice and teacher preference. Teachers who have done the same thing for umpteen years and who have little or no desire to even try something new or different, are given free rein to continue practicing the same way they did when they entered the profession or ceased professional development. And to boot, their experience often automatically deems them valuable and knowledgeable, so they often end up mentoring and having a profound influence on naïve and inexperienced new members of the profession. It’s a vicious cycle. How do we end it?

            The rant being over, I must say, I enjoyed the readings again this week. The historical background offered by Connors and Hartwell were particularly interesting and informative. Hartwell’s discussion of Francis’ grammars (and more) was an excellent organizer for thinking about and discussing grammar with others. And Hartwell’s piece really left so little to be argued, or at least I think so. I can think of a few members of my department who I am certain could find fault. I was really interested in the notion of metalinguistic awareness and metacognition. I use some strategies (writer’s memo and reflections) to encourage this in my students, but feel as though I need more (in number), and more specific, strategies to use in the classroom. All in all, I would say the readings, and my subsequent thoughts regarding the many issues touched upon (literacy, class, etc.), have added much to my personal arsenal of Grammar Wars weaponry. I now feel much more prepared to engage in this critical dialogue.  (I’ll just have to try to handle my impatience and frustration at the fact that this conversation was, as Hartwell put it, decided over a decade ago!)

I apologize for the late post. I just moved this past week and my internet is not yet up - had to wait until I got to work to access. Thanks!

 

So I actually enjoyed the readings this week, despite finding it more challenging than usual to make the time. This kind of reading can’t be done in the car with feuding children, or while assisting with homework and cooking dinner. Or while packing to move, or while....Well, you get the drift.  So, I was just a little happy to sequester myself behind my (now empty to the point of echoing when I yell at the kids) bedroom door.   J

I’m the kind of reader who’s going to believe what an “expert” says unless I have experience to the contrary or have read another expert propounding a contrasting viewpoint. (Yes, I am often told I am naïve, but I just have to believe that the “experts” have the best intentions!) So, I didn’t really find any points of contention in the readings this week, (or any that caused me to boil with anger or incredulousness) but I did constantly ask myself how I could incorporate cognitive perspective into my teaching and learning. So often when I’m reading articles and theory, I would love to have a simpler, more accessible version to share with my students, giving them the opportunity to read, then practice and learn about writing and their personal processes via engagement in writing.     

The writing process in cognitive terms is simply amazing to me. It is so complex that I still don’t understand my own process, let alone the widely varying individual processes of my students. Glarden (she taught at my alma mater!) laid out the cognitive process so it was accessible and understandable. She also hits the nail on the head with her statement regarding some flaws of the cognitive processing model: “the cognitive model assumes a motivation that does not exist” (711). As if ANY teacher could argue with that statement! However, often education takes research and theory belonging to the psychological domain and stretches it to “fit” educational purposes. The limitations proposed by Glarden Bland are indicative of this approach.

“Students should know what their emotions can and cannot do during writing. They should become familiar with the emotional as well as intellectual cues that tell them when they are ready to write, ready to stop, and ready to do a number of things in between” (711). Again – completely agree. Now I need an opportunity to translate this into practice, and for some reason this feels like it would come quite naturally. I think the Writer’s Memo I currently use with my students to elicit thought and writing about their processes might, with a little modification, help students to become aware of and use their cues to become more effective and efficient writers. Writer's Memo Link -Click Here

Britton and crew elaborated and really made sense with their Point Utterance argument. I have often told my students to silence their inner critics until they get some content on their paper. Both Rose and Britton appear to support the notion that we allow for fluency first, then move onto clarity and conventions. This will be particularly helpful, as last week I was speaking with another member of the ELA department who was beginning the research project. He had devised a series of graphic organizers comprised of boxes of various shapes and sizes for his students to fill-in, then later, transform into a 5-7 page paper. The squares and rectangles were very visually appealing, but I would NOT want to be the poor English teacher relegated to poring over THOSE papers. No Peter Elbow (or was it Murray?) moments for him. Of course I shared the Fluency/Clarity/Conventions approach with him and he asked for research! Yay! Perhaps he will be my first convert? J

Flower and Hayes too, just seemed to make sense with their discussion about discovery. I am thinking perhaps I can have my students write a brief description (or even draw a picture) of their perception of their audience. Then, keeping this in mind, they look over their papers and note in the margins possible reactions and questions from their audience.  I do believe most of them have lost consideration of their audience during their revisions and peer reviews, despite discussing the important of audience when beginning the project.  Colorado State University - Audience Writing Guide

If you happen to know of any additional articles/literature I can share with the king of graphic organizers, or have lesson ideas, I would LOOOVE for you to share! J

Secondary Vs. Postsecondary OR REform Vs. TRANSform

Why is it that the definition of literacy appears to be conceived at the university? Should not our society, and the knowledge and skills one must possess to navigate and function within it, define literacy?

The new Common Core State Standards are based on the notion that transfer of knowledge, concepts, and competencies is key to, and the ultimate goal of, academic “proficiency.” This is the same for me as “application.” In other words, we in the k-12 grades are setting our sights on what students will be able to DO with what they learn. This is (seemingly) in stark contrast to the expectations of the university.

The definitions of literacy at the university level, as well as the expectations for students seems a bit arrogant and naïve to me at this juncture of my life and career. Many of my students find academic writing (which I agree should be a genre of its own) irrelevant and tedious. They prefer writing collaboratively, integrating visual components into their texts, and creating podcasts and web pages as opposed to composing essays and research papers. They also happen to excel at this form of communication, or literacy if you will. The world they will enter and will spend their lives in, with the exception of their years spent at the university, will not ask them to write five paragraph essays, or be familiar with the language of the academy. Why are we still using such an outdated, dysfunctional definition of literacy in education? Students can learn, and we can teach, all the strategies necessary for academic and vocational success, regardless of whether we use (and they are familiar and comfortable with) belles letters, British Lit., or blogs. Why are we not defining literacy in terms of how students can use knowledge and skills in various, dynamic, multi-modal contexts?  Why are we not assessing a student’s ability to create/edit a blog or webpage, as opposed to their five paragraph essay? How can we tell a student who is computer literate (and beyond!), and who composes effectively in that mode, that he/she is illiterate, or basic, and must agree to remediation before being allowed full, matriculating status in our universities?

In K-8 we strive to provide authentic, relevant writing contexts in which to situate our students to develop their writing skills. However, we then weigh them down with the most inauthentic high stakes writing we have available – academic writing – in the form of research papers, critical analysis of literature, etc. The ONLY place they will be called upon to do this is IN academia. As a secondary teacher, I don’t get to choose the type of student I get; it’s open enrollment all year, every year. I don’t get to make up my own language and version of literacy that students must learn and be able to use so they can become part of an extinct (at least in the real world) academic tradition. I strive to help them discover and develop the strategies and competencies that will serve them in life – at work, in their families, with the business community, and beyond. College is no longer the land of the privilege, and never will be again. Seriously, it’s been a HUNDRED years – WHAT is taking us so long?

I recently had a professor who proposed that we don’t need educational REformation, but that we are in desperate need of educational TRANSformation. Hmmmm....

Fluency - Clarity - Correctness

Ruminating upon the week’s readings and attending a PDE Institute where Common Core Literacy Standards, curricula, and assessments were a primary topic of discussion, really has me wondering where the writing experts’ and writing teachers’ voices are in the process of developing and deciding upon our state’s (and country’s) Literacy standards and curricula.

From the moment I began to look over the standards our state (and 46 others) has agreed to adopt and transition to within the next three to five years, I was shaking my head and wondering what the hell is going on. If you’ve seen the Common Core State Standards, and have compared them to PA’s, you might be relieved. They’re less broad and more focused than the PA standards, and they’re more user friendly and recognize that the learning taking place in ELA classrooms is process learning, not content learning. They’re definitely a step in the right direction.

So, what’s my issue? My problem lies in the expectations implied by the exemplars included in the numerous appendices for the document. The exemplars shared with us were daunting, even from educators’ perspectives. We gasped, collectively, with incredulousness when we viewed the first grade exemplar. Shortly thereafter, what had been a respectful Q&A panel discussion quickly eroded into an uncontrollable mudslide of questions fueled by anger and disbelief, and the flinging of accusations.

If years of experience and research have told us that writing is most effectively taught via the progression of fluency – clarity – correctness, why are we expecting first graders to write in prescribed, neat little boxes, dictating form and regurgitation of text for purposes of assessment if we are not first doing as Steven Lynn and countless others have advocated, by asserting that we first develop what writers need most – “confidence and commitment, which is like to come only from a genuine sense of control and success” (134).  If I am crestfallen by the mere sight of the exemplar, how will a first grader just beginning to write sentences, feel and react when an exemplar is modeled for them?

In other news, as some of you know, my sophomores are in the thick of writing their research papers. I have attempted different methods and strategies every single year I have taught, and this year I decided I was going to be a much better coach of writing, as opposed to an editor of student writing. So, it’s taking us a really, really long time to write. BUT, good news is that I am helping my students to become more developed, confident, and inspired writers – at least according to Lynn and Elbow (130). We do plenty of freewriting and discuss its value and hypothesize about when we might find it valuable. We also make use of more prescribed, traditional methods once they have some content to work with. We may be taking a really, really long time to write, but I’m wagering that I’ll recoup some in the form of a much easier grading of papers, especially since I’m now considering a submission only grade for the final paper, as I have done with the drafts. I also think we’re going to try some of the activities Lynn suggested in my Writing and Rhetoric class. My horoscope said it was time to do what I really wanted at work. I think I’m going to go for it. I just hope I remember to close my door.

Meandering

How is it that I have come this far into my education, and my education in writing specifically, and I have yet to read any of the seminal texts Elbow has authored?! The CAWP ISI presented (and we practiced) bits and pieces of strategies offered by many of those we have been reading, but Elbow seems to be someone we simply should have studied more in depth, if that’s possible in a four week course.

In reading Elbow’s response to Harris’ book, I found his voice seemingly familiar, friendly, and completely bought into his brand of “ethos,” of “equating voice and ethos” (29). I empathized with his irritation towards Harris, and when he admitted he had to force himself to read objectively. I agreed with his counter - arguments. I even followed and agreed, perhaps naively (a term Elbow uses to describe one of Harris’ suppositions), when he brought the reader to a compromise of sorts at the end of his response, wherein he praised the usefulness of Harris’ model for discourse types after taking her “to task” for the inadequacies of her arguments, histories, and suggestions. However, the entire time I was reading and empathizing, the voice in my head quietly but continually repeated a quote from Burnham’s piece as he quoted Elbow, “...ethos – good character – is the central concern in all rhetoric... It’s nice to be trustworthy; but if you’re skilled you can fake it’ ” (29). Of course Elbow has his own agenda as he responds to Harris’ book; he is, after all, a core member of the Expressivists. That being said, I thought he did a fine job of representing the Expressivist perspective of voice, in the sense that voice has the ability to “empower individuals to act in the world” (23). He succeeded in “communicat[ing] intense belief through voice” (24).

As I continue to place more stake in the tenets of Expressivism, I (like Elbow) must continually look for the good in other movements, philosophies, and strategies so as not to ignore their value and contribution to the study and teaching of writing. Prior to teaching it was easy to be an “all or nothing” believer. But, as I teach and learn, I am finding that there is almost always something worth mining and trying in every philosophy.

This week I get to teach my students strategies for removing their voices from the research papers they have worked tirelessly to draft and revise, repeatedly, for the past eight weeks. They will be omitting or replacing all first and second person personal pronouns to meet the curricular requirements of our course. Perhaps we will engage in some reflective writing regarding this directive and then discuss how it makes us feel when we as writers are compelled to extricate our voices from the text we have worked so diligently to create.  Perhaps my students will find ways of retaining their voices, regardless of pronoun usage. (This is my goal.) Instead of being angry and feeling oppressed by outdated curriculum and the unreasonable, Current-Traditional   expectations of our postsecondary “partners,” I will see this as an opportunity for us to write for yet another purpose, thereby enriching our writing experiences and ability to perform in yet another rhetorical situation. (Sigh.)