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.