21 February 2011

 
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

3 comments:

  1. HAHA. I just now saw the FB sign on the moving truck. Conveys an entirely different message now!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the idea of students having the choice to drawn how they envision their audience. What a clever idea! And a great way to work in other intelligences and give students to experiment in another form of literacy. It could offer great insight into the mind of the student . . . and give them a chance to realize that not all parts of writing have to be hard or serious (not implying that art isn't, but there's something about drawing that can be soothing and non-threatening . . . to people who like it anyway).

    Geez, I ramble. Sorry for that!

    Make sure you report back if you ever give it a try.

    ReplyDelete
  3. thanks for the links - love your writers reflection memo! Can't wait to try it.

    ReplyDelete