It's interesting to me how, no matter which classes I take in a semester, topics tend to tie together in unexpected ways. For example, I'm working on a presentation on Voice in Creative Writing, and the first article we are reading this week is "Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" by Peter Elbow.
Personally, I appreciate a strong sense of natural, authorial voice in writing. For example, if I were to be given a passage by David Sedaris, without knowing that he wrote it, I'd probably be able to guess, because Sedaris has a distinct voice. It is my opinion that this kind of voice gives flavor to an author's work. However, I had never considered the negative reactions to voice-- "it's misleading," "sincerity is not a useful goal for writing" (1)-- nor had I considered that the voice debate goes as far back in history as Plato and Aristotle. Recently, the discussion has quieted down quite a bit, which is also interesting. Have we tired of the debate? Elbow certainly doesn't want this to happen.
In terms of recent discussions regarding voice, Elbow examines Theodore Baird's approach in his classroom in the mid 1900s, which had a significant impact on many who came into contact with it-- including many great thinkers in the field. Baird's approach focused on the importance of voice, however did not see it as reflective of the author behind the pen. They define "self" in writing as being "continually made and re-made by language" (3). Personally, I'm not a huge fan of this approach because it reminds me very much of New Criticism which I have very mixed feelings about, because I don't think it gives enough credence to the presence and experience of an author entering into his or her own text.
Even though we don't acknowledge it now as much as we used to, voice is still very much alive in our modern world, perhaps even more so now than ever before. Voice has become all the more important in this new digital age, when a text message can be interpreted in many different ways. Ever heard of the many different ways to read the sentence, "I never said I stole her money"? The voice behind writing becomes all the more important as the world of "text" takes over.
I like the difference that Elbow highlights between "text" and "voice," establishing text as literal words on the page, just the words, without any external meaning attached to them-- rather like numbers in a math problem. Voice, on the other hand, is less like the mathematical equation of text, and is instead likened to the personal handwriting of each individual person-- warmer and unique. In my opinion, this is establishing voice as the soul of the piece.
It takes time for a writer to establish and become comfortable with his or her voice, in fact, it is a lifelong process. In the classroom setting, it becomes the teacher's job to gently guide students into finding their own voice in the midst of handing out assignments on strict deadlines-- much easier said than done. I agree with Elbow that an understanding of voice can come through reading and understanding that voices of authors they enjoy, and then using those examples to try to better understand their own. I know this certainly worked for me.
Interestingly, Elbow, also mentions some of the cons of voice in writing, for example, in some instances it may be best to overlook voice, in order to find meaning in a work. For example, one might not enjoy a certain writer because of the voice in his or her work, but that does not mean that he or she does not have something important to offer. A teacher might not automatically connect with a student's voice, but the student might just have an entirely different style. There are instances in which looking beyond voice, although hard, can be greatly beneficial. I enjoyed Elbow's article because I think he offered a fair perspective both for and against voice in writing. No matter which side you fall on, the discussion is far from over.
Our next article, "Responding to Student Writing" by Nancy Sommers, doesn't quite tie in with the first, but it does tie back to a topic we have discussed in extensively in class, that is, the most effctive ways of responding to student writing. Despite a teacher's best efforts, a student may simply not connect with their teaching approach because teaching is not one-size fits-all. For this reason, it is important to be prepared to have different strategies for dealing with different kinds of students.
Responding to student writing takes a long time-- Sommers estimates about 20 to 40 minutes per student, which adds up greatly considering the amount of students and periods one teacher has total. This is a lot of time to dedicate to an effort which may or may not be appreciated by the students, and it's hard to say whether or not it is. As we have discussed in previous classes, some students respond well and some don't care at all, which can be incredibly discouraging to the teacher trying his or her best.
As I read through this piece I felt a strong sense of déjà vu, and I found out why pretty early on, as Sommers cites Lil Brannon and Cyril Knoblauch as other thinkers in the field. Brannon and Knoblauch wrote the article I covered last week, "On Student's Rights to Their Own Texts," which covers similar ideas of placing emphasis on the student's work. A major conclusion that Sommers comes to is that often a teacher's comments on a paper are much like that of a computer, "arbitrary and idiosyncratic" (3) which, as has been concluded, can draw the student's attention away from their own purposes in writing. Commanding students to "expand" and to think more about certain parts of their writing may be done with good intentions, but it may also defeat the purpose of what the student is trying to convey.
I certainly think that teacher comments can be nitpicky. Sommers talks about students becoming frustrated because the comments on their papers seem like they could have been copied and pasted from one to the other, especially in cases when something like "be specific," "be precise" is said over and over. However, in some cases, comments like this are totally warranted, and I think it all depends on the relationship that is built between teacher and student which makes all the difference. If the student knows that the teacher cares and is on his or her team, they're going to be more likely to question a comment, rather than be discouraged.
In regard to our final project, I'm excited about our spin on Genius Hour and passion projects! Genius Hour was birthed by Google, one of the current most powerful companies in the world, and I think it's an incredibly empowering exercise. The original idea is that for one hour, once a week, students are allowed to take class time and work on their personal "passion projects," which they will present at the end of the year Passion projects are cool because they give students the ability to learn and work on a project that is important to them, outside of a class syllabus. I think that these passion projects will be a great way of workshopping our individual ideas, and will serve as a way for all of us to gather together and collaborate on all of our different ideas. The unifying strand that runs throughout all of our work will be the hashtag #WhyIWrite, which is a big question for anyone involved in our field.
Personally, I began writing because it gave me a voice in ways that my own voice failed me. I was a painfully shy child who struggled to speak to anyone about something as simple as the weather, let alone about serious matters. However, even though I couldn't speak up, I could write. In time, teachers noticed that I wrote well, and encouraged me to write more, and on different subjects. Through positive responses to my writing, I learned that I did have something to say and it gave me the courage to speak up. Now, I write because it allows me to think through complex ideas and outline theories, and come up with my own new concepts that I would love to introduce to the world of literature. Now, I write for the sake of research.
For my passion project, I like the idea of compiling a few lesson plans that incorporate theories and techniques we have learned about in class, in order to come up with a curriculum that might help other students to love writing. I would especially appreciate our group time for this effort, because of all the teachers in class who could advise me in the practicality of my plans. I like this idea because it could turn #WhyIWrite into #WhyWeWrite.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Sunday, October 16, 2016
These Theories are Comp-licated -- Discussion Lead Response
“Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” by Richard Fulkerson
“On Student’s Rights to their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response” by Lil Brannon and C.H. Knoblauch
The most effective way to teach writing to students has been up for debate for a long time, as detailed in “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century,” by Richard Fulkerson. Fulkerson’s article is an updated look at the field of composition studies from his last assessment of the field in the early 90s. In the twenty-plus years that have passed, new fields have risen up and changed the nature of the field in important ways, but these changes require assessment. Twenty years ago, people were not as interested in cultural studies, including topics such as race, feminism, and the LGBTQ+ community. However, interest in these fields, among others, has boomed in recent years and added many new chapters to composition studies textbooks. This is most impactful in the sense that composition studies is no longer limited to the English classroom, and instead is pertinent to many other fields of study as well. For this reason, it is interesting to study what has changed in recent years in terms of teaching methods for these new groups of students. Fulkerson opens his essay by proposing four questions which dissect different methods of teaching composition axiologically, by process, pedagogically, and epistemologically.
The purpose of these questions is to examine the different approaches to teaching college writing with the inclusion of new fields of study. For example, the cultural studies field melds well with composition studies because both seek similar ends, most notably, liberation from traditional discourse. Fulkerson also discusses expressivism, a methodological way in which writing is moving away from the traditional. Expressivism gives the writer in any field a large amount of room to respond to topics they feel passionate about through freewriting and journaling, and to seeks to “‘foster [. . .] aesthetic, cognitive, and moral development,’ not to improve written communication or encourage critical thinking” (Fulkerson 667). The composition studies community appears to be torn between adopting the newer methodologies or sticking with the traditional, process-driven methodologies, and Fulkerson ultimately concludes that opinions differ, and there is no way of proving one methodology to be superior over another.
I didn’t expect these two articles to tie together but, interestingly enough, they do. In their article, “On Student’s Rights to their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response,” Brannon and Knoblauch present a compelling argument detailing a new way for teachers to respond to student writers, which would certainly not be considered a traditional methodology. The writers make a case for why teachers should approach students’ writing with as much respect as they would approach the thoughts of any other author. To understand this argument, the reader is asked to consider the examples of a textbook, or a newspaper article. Brannon and Knoblauch argue that, when reading these mediums, we tend to automatically assume that the writer has done his research and that he is educated on the topic he is covering. And, even if this proves to not be true, we still give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume that the lapse in quality was a moment of weakness. However, when it comes to students, the assumption automatically tends to be that “the student [has] not yet earned the authority that ordinarily compels readers to listen seriously to what writers have to say.” (Brannon 3). Regardless of whether or not this proves to be true, the automatic assumption of students inferior intellectual status is demeaning, and may lead them to care less about their assignments, going on the assumption that their work will be grammatically picked to pieces and the reliability of it will be questioned. Brannon and Knoblauch do not set out to argue that student texts are authoritative, however they do encourage teachers to move away from their concept from the “Ideal Text.” Instead, they recommend focusing on conferencing with students and working with them to communicate their ideas in a more effective way. By doing this, the hope is that students may learn to better explain themselves and feel that their writing is being graded on quality of argument, rather than an arbitrary “Ideal” standard.
I found Fulkerson’s article to be loaded to overflowing with heavy theoretical talking points and references, and had to read through it several times to ensure that I understood what he was trying to convey. He attempted to fit many different points into one paper which got confusing and was often hard to tie the arguments back into the thesis. The paper mainly served as an analysis of the newer methodologies in comparison to already established tradition and, while excellent points were expounded on, Fulkerson ended the paper with an ambiguous summation of both: “composition studies is in for a bumpy ride” (681). So it would seem. That all being said, I did enjoy the walk-through of the history of composition studies, as well as the introduction to expressivism, and I look forward to a discussion of its merits and faults, standing against the established tradition.
On the other hand, I enjoyed Brannon and Knoblauch’s article immensely because I thought it raised very valid points regarding how teachers respond to student writing. In one of the footnotes, the writers make a comparison to reader-response criticism, a mode of literary criticism with which I am familiar. Reader-response focuses a great deal on the authority of the writer within the context of their writing, and I think this is very interesting to apply to students’ work. I thought the case example of John’s written response to the Lindbergh baby prompt was an excellent way of illustrating this point. I think that, while this article offers wonderful theoretical advice, it might be problematic in execution because teachers have such limited time with students. For this reason, I feel that the teacher taking this advice into practice might have to adapt it to fit his or her own classroom. That being said, I still feel that the awareness promoted in this essay is crucial, and could change a student’s response to a writing assignment.
Questions:
#1. Do you think that Critical/Cultural Studies(CCS) classes are effective ways of teaching writing to students? Why, or why not?
#2. Discuss the differences between the dominant tradition of composition and current cultural studies/expressivism/CCS.
#3. Do you think that Brannon and Knoblauch’s model is realistically possible to apply in a traditional classroom setting? And if not overall, how could certain elements be utilized?
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Commentary and Revision - Blog Post #3
I have always been a student who welcomes feedback from my teachers. I appreciate reading comments for two reasons: first, their presence indicated that my teachers took the time to actually read my work. Second, I can use the feedback to improve my work. In my opinion, these comments are crucial. However, I also know that, more often than not, students do not read these comments. More often than not, teachers spend their time writing comments for the student to look at the grade and throw the paper into a folder, never to be looked at again. I can imagine this has an impact on the quality of the comments that a teacher is inspired to leave but, that being said, I think commentary is too important to be taken lightly.
I find the topic of the first paper, "Writing Comments on Student Papers" by John Bean to be interesting because Bean regards commentary as a must, and broaches the topic of what qualifies as helpful, constructive commentary. Very few people are good at taking criticism, and students are among the newest, freshest writers. It is important to recognize this, and apply commentary accordingly.
Bean drops the word "puritanical" in reference to the commentary strategy that is commonly employed by teachers, which is sadly accurate. Paper revisions can turn into whirlwinds of red pen marks and comments that aren't easily understood-- as evidenced by the student responses Bean cites. I feel that the most important thing a teacher could do is to give the same kind of criticism that he or she would hope to receive on their own writing.
I completely agree with the idea of making comments on late stage rough drafts, because this is a way of ensuring that the comments are read the the suggestions are noted. As I said before, comments on a final piece are not going to be heeded by the vast majority of students. The hope is that the comments on the final piece will be read and applied to future work, but this simply does not happen in most cases.
I have mentioned more than once that I enjoy reading things that I can one day employ in my own classroom, and this paper includes a wealth of knowledge that I can certainly utilize. Moving through the article, I appreciated the suggested commentary, as well as the explanations attached. Most interesting to me was Bean's categorization of grammatical errors as "low-order concerns." He suggests that students be led to realize their own mistakes, and not necessarily have them pointed out by the teacher-- i.e., telling the student that a sentence contains a grammatical error and leaving it to them to correct. I really like this idea, mainly because I think it would force the student to learn exactly what s/he did wrong, and would be a more proactive way to learn to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
My overall reaction to this piece is positive, mainly because Bean is not the kind of teacher who lets his students get away with much, I like that! I have a lot of respect for the methods he shared in this paper, and would be excited to try them out on my own.
Moving on to the next piece, "Response to Writing" by Beach and Friedrich, I feel that these two articles were well paired. Beach and Friedrich's paper opens with a walk through the past several decades, in regard to the strategies employed in teaching writing. Right from the beginning it was evident that these writers and Bean share the opinion that comments on drafts are more effective than comments on final pieces, in regard to feedback being heeded.
Something I found interesting about this paper was the idea that effective revision and commentary will sometimes call for the teacher to take a step back and consider a different perspective. Somehow this hadn't occurred to me, but I was particularly struck by the example of the Indian born teacher's reaction to her American student's paper on receiving her driver's license. Effectively responding to content may occasionally call for the teacher stepping beyond his or her own experience in order to focus on the writing and respond accordingly.
I especially like the idea of "reader based feedback," which is explained as feedback in which the teacher responds as a typical reader would- for example, responding with surprise, anger, or confusion, in reaction to the content presented. I have experienced this, and it makes the feedback seem more human and relateable. I do not think that this indirect feedback method is always appropriate, but I think it would be helpful and refreshing if mixed in among more traditional, direct commentary.
Each student is different and commentary can never be one-size-fits-all. Some revision strategies will work for some and not for others, and it would seem that part of the art of teaching is figuring out how to help each student in the best possible way. I liked this second article because it covered a myriad of potential strategies, and acknowledged the pros and cons of each. The most important thing to gather about teacher commentary, in my opinion, is that it is both sought out by students, and crucial to their success.
I find the topic of the first paper, "Writing Comments on Student Papers" by John Bean to be interesting because Bean regards commentary as a must, and broaches the topic of what qualifies as helpful, constructive commentary. Very few people are good at taking criticism, and students are among the newest, freshest writers. It is important to recognize this, and apply commentary accordingly.
Bean drops the word "puritanical" in reference to the commentary strategy that is commonly employed by teachers, which is sadly accurate. Paper revisions can turn into whirlwinds of red pen marks and comments that aren't easily understood-- as evidenced by the student responses Bean cites. I feel that the most important thing a teacher could do is to give the same kind of criticism that he or she would hope to receive on their own writing.
I completely agree with the idea of making comments on late stage rough drafts, because this is a way of ensuring that the comments are read the the suggestions are noted. As I said before, comments on a final piece are not going to be heeded by the vast majority of students. The hope is that the comments on the final piece will be read and applied to future work, but this simply does not happen in most cases.
I have mentioned more than once that I enjoy reading things that I can one day employ in my own classroom, and this paper includes a wealth of knowledge that I can certainly utilize. Moving through the article, I appreciated the suggested commentary, as well as the explanations attached. Most interesting to me was Bean's categorization of grammatical errors as "low-order concerns." He suggests that students be led to realize their own mistakes, and not necessarily have them pointed out by the teacher-- i.e., telling the student that a sentence contains a grammatical error and leaving it to them to correct. I really like this idea, mainly because I think it would force the student to learn exactly what s/he did wrong, and would be a more proactive way to learn to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
My overall reaction to this piece is positive, mainly because Bean is not the kind of teacher who lets his students get away with much, I like that! I have a lot of respect for the methods he shared in this paper, and would be excited to try them out on my own.
Moving on to the next piece, "Response to Writing" by Beach and Friedrich, I feel that these two articles were well paired. Beach and Friedrich's paper opens with a walk through the past several decades, in regard to the strategies employed in teaching writing. Right from the beginning it was evident that these writers and Bean share the opinion that comments on drafts are more effective than comments on final pieces, in regard to feedback being heeded.
Something I found interesting about this paper was the idea that effective revision and commentary will sometimes call for the teacher to take a step back and consider a different perspective. Somehow this hadn't occurred to me, but I was particularly struck by the example of the Indian born teacher's reaction to her American student's paper on receiving her driver's license. Effectively responding to content may occasionally call for the teacher stepping beyond his or her own experience in order to focus on the writing and respond accordingly.
I especially like the idea of "reader based feedback," which is explained as feedback in which the teacher responds as a typical reader would- for example, responding with surprise, anger, or confusion, in reaction to the content presented. I have experienced this, and it makes the feedback seem more human and relateable. I do not think that this indirect feedback method is always appropriate, but I think it would be helpful and refreshing if mixed in among more traditional, direct commentary.
Each student is different and commentary can never be one-size-fits-all. Some revision strategies will work for some and not for others, and it would seem that part of the art of teaching is figuring out how to help each student in the best possible way. I liked this second article because it covered a myriad of potential strategies, and acknowledged the pros and cons of each. The most important thing to gather about teacher commentary, in my opinion, is that it is both sought out by students, and crucial to their success.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
The Importance of Being...Authentic - Blog Post #2
Everything about this week's assigned reading "Teaching Writing Authentically" by Carly D. Lidvall was thrilling to me. As I expressed in class last week, I want resources, and Lidvall has provided a gold mine of tools and resources within roughly sixty pages. The first thing that struck me as being interesting about this reading is that it is the write-up of a student's capstone experience, which made it seem much more accessible. I graduated with my bachelor's degree not too long ago, and I knew students who had to do this kind of write up to summarize their experiences student teaching, and so I was immediately interested to see the experiences that Lidvall chose to report on.
I completely agree the assertion that Lidvall makes in the first paragraph of her abstract, that "Student interest in writing begins once students see a real reason for writing" (3). Although I am not a teacher, I can easily think back to my time as a student, and I remember it being far more interesting to write when the topic was something that piqued my interest. However, I have always had the propensity to express myself through writing, and this is not the case for every student. This is all the more pertinent when a student is less prone to pick up a pen and write. I believe that a student is going to be far more interested in writing when he or she realizes that the writing experience doesn't have to be painful. Not all writing is book reports on required reading, or essay answers about the themes in books that he or she never cared about to begin with. Although there is merit in book reports and analyzing themes, truly effective writing instruction should inspire students to see the possibilities beyond school.
This brings me to my next thought, which Lidvall also addressed: relevance and real-world use. As I mentioned in class last week, I like when things can be practically applied. Although I love theory, I am happiest when I can read something, apply it in real life situations, and see results. For this reason, I appreciated Lidvall's proposal that "writing instruction in schools should closely model the writing found in real world situations. Authentic writing activities attempt to replicate the writing that students experience in the real world. I couldn't agree more.
Authenticity in writing instruction is a fascinating idea, and a way in which I would try to introduce writing to a group of students. Kids are born to ask questions and not stop asking until they receive answers, and I can only imagine the questions asked when faced with certain assignments:
"Why do I have to do this?"
"How will this ever affect my life?"
"Why do I need to know this?"
There are very real reasons to write. Every day of their adult lives, people make money by drafting proposals, editing documents, writing articles, movie scripts, books, etc. The options are endless. Although, regardless, not every student is going to be interested in writing, I agree strongly with the idea of teaching authentically. This approach may teach a kid that it is possible for him to express himself, or that a talent she has has real-life applicability.
This article provided a wealth of helpful information, strategies, and techniques to improve authentic writing instruction and create supportive environments to inspire interest in writing. Reading through, I appreciated Lidvall's note that writing instruction is not one-size-fits-all, and that writing instruction should vary: "Teaching authentically means meeting students where they are and teaching them from that place" (10). This, in my opinion, is crucial. Not every student learns in the same way, and it may take serious work from a teacher to attempt to engage different students in different ways. Writing is deeply personal, and not every kid is going to respond in the same way. Some may be more resistant.
I particularly enjoyed the section regarding "Rationale for the Curriculum," because this section struck close to home in regard to my own interests. Lidvall used the example of a student newspaper as "an authentic form of writing that enables students to write for an audience, learn a variety of formats, and write about issues that are important to them" (18). Throughout my college career I worked on the student newspaper, and this experience opened my eyes to the points of view from students of all majors and worldviews. When someone wants to say something, and they want a platform on which it will be displayed, students newspapers are valuable resources. I loved this case study, because I feel that students of all ages would be able to appreciate the newspaper platform. I personally have watched students, myself included, come alive when given the opportunity, and I found the newspaper case study to be fascinating. As Lidvall walked through each step of her thought process, objectives, goals, lesson plan, and materials, I found myself growing excited and wanting to try this out myself. Authentic writing instruction is such an exciting idea, and I feel that this example is a fantastic resource. This is an excellent example of everything I could want to gain out of this class and use for my own.
"Teacher-Writers: Then, Now, Next" by Anne Elrod Whitney, Troy Hicksm Leah Zuidema, James E. Fredricksen, and Robert P. Yagelski provided an interesting tie-in to the first article. Whereas Lidvall focused on making writing an authentic process for the student, this article gives more attention to the teacher's job as a writer, so as to keep them up to date and relatable to the students they teach.
I agree with this mindset as well. I believe that the worst thing a teacher could do is to lose touch with his or her students, and fall into the mindset that the assignments are only to be given and graded. As in any career, a great professional is the one who practices and is constantly working to improve him/herself. Whitney et. al. focused briefly on the "Then" history of teacher-writers, before moving on to the primary focus of the article, the "Now," and where teachers have found their role in recent years.
In recent years, there have been movements toward collaboration between teachers, to foster mentor environments, where teachers can connect with other teachers and receive support as researchers as well as educators. In addition to support, teachers involved in such programs find collaboration opportunities, where they can "co-create knowledge" (179). I find this idea to be interesting, because I think it could work as a way to keep educators sharp. I like the idea of teachers working together to help each other improve, because learning is an on-going experience. Just like writing authentically is important for students, it is also important for the adults who guide them. I very much liked the idea of "teacher-writers being authors in every sense: professionals who claim authority with their own words and their work" (179).
Although I originally found this article to be much drier than the first, I found it to tie in quite nicely in regard to the idea of authenticity. When I find myself in a teaching position, it is very important to me that I stay relevant, publish, and collaborate with other educators to be the best teacher that I can be, and help my students in every way possible.
I completely agree the assertion that Lidvall makes in the first paragraph of her abstract, that "Student interest in writing begins once students see a real reason for writing" (3). Although I am not a teacher, I can easily think back to my time as a student, and I remember it being far more interesting to write when the topic was something that piqued my interest. However, I have always had the propensity to express myself through writing, and this is not the case for every student. This is all the more pertinent when a student is less prone to pick up a pen and write. I believe that a student is going to be far more interested in writing when he or she realizes that the writing experience doesn't have to be painful. Not all writing is book reports on required reading, or essay answers about the themes in books that he or she never cared about to begin with. Although there is merit in book reports and analyzing themes, truly effective writing instruction should inspire students to see the possibilities beyond school.
This brings me to my next thought, which Lidvall also addressed: relevance and real-world use. As I mentioned in class last week, I like when things can be practically applied. Although I love theory, I am happiest when I can read something, apply it in real life situations, and see results. For this reason, I appreciated Lidvall's proposal that "writing instruction in schools should closely model the writing found in real world situations. Authentic writing activities attempt to replicate the writing that students experience in the real world. I couldn't agree more.
Authenticity in writing instruction is a fascinating idea, and a way in which I would try to introduce writing to a group of students. Kids are born to ask questions and not stop asking until they receive answers, and I can only imagine the questions asked when faced with certain assignments:
"Why do I have to do this?"
"How will this ever affect my life?"
"Why do I need to know this?"
There are very real reasons to write. Every day of their adult lives, people make money by drafting proposals, editing documents, writing articles, movie scripts, books, etc. The options are endless. Although, regardless, not every student is going to be interested in writing, I agree strongly with the idea of teaching authentically. This approach may teach a kid that it is possible for him to express himself, or that a talent she has has real-life applicability.
This article provided a wealth of helpful information, strategies, and techniques to improve authentic writing instruction and create supportive environments to inspire interest in writing. Reading through, I appreciated Lidvall's note that writing instruction is not one-size-fits-all, and that writing instruction should vary: "Teaching authentically means meeting students where they are and teaching them from that place" (10). This, in my opinion, is crucial. Not every student learns in the same way, and it may take serious work from a teacher to attempt to engage different students in different ways. Writing is deeply personal, and not every kid is going to respond in the same way. Some may be more resistant.
I particularly enjoyed the section regarding "Rationale for the Curriculum," because this section struck close to home in regard to my own interests. Lidvall used the example of a student newspaper as "an authentic form of writing that enables students to write for an audience, learn a variety of formats, and write about issues that are important to them" (18). Throughout my college career I worked on the student newspaper, and this experience opened my eyes to the points of view from students of all majors and worldviews. When someone wants to say something, and they want a platform on which it will be displayed, students newspapers are valuable resources. I loved this case study, because I feel that students of all ages would be able to appreciate the newspaper platform. I personally have watched students, myself included, come alive when given the opportunity, and I found the newspaper case study to be fascinating. As Lidvall walked through each step of her thought process, objectives, goals, lesson plan, and materials, I found myself growing excited and wanting to try this out myself. Authentic writing instruction is such an exciting idea, and I feel that this example is a fantastic resource. This is an excellent example of everything I could want to gain out of this class and use for my own.
"Teacher-Writers: Then, Now, Next" by Anne Elrod Whitney, Troy Hicksm Leah Zuidema, James E. Fredricksen, and Robert P. Yagelski provided an interesting tie-in to the first article. Whereas Lidvall focused on making writing an authentic process for the student, this article gives more attention to the teacher's job as a writer, so as to keep them up to date and relatable to the students they teach.
I agree with this mindset as well. I believe that the worst thing a teacher could do is to lose touch with his or her students, and fall into the mindset that the assignments are only to be given and graded. As in any career, a great professional is the one who practices and is constantly working to improve him/herself. Whitney et. al. focused briefly on the "Then" history of teacher-writers, before moving on to the primary focus of the article, the "Now," and where teachers have found their role in recent years.
In recent years, there have been movements toward collaboration between teachers, to foster mentor environments, where teachers can connect with other teachers and receive support as researchers as well as educators. In addition to support, teachers involved in such programs find collaboration opportunities, where they can "co-create knowledge" (179). I find this idea to be interesting, because I think it could work as a way to keep educators sharp. I like the idea of teachers working together to help each other improve, because learning is an on-going experience. Just like writing authentically is important for students, it is also important for the adults who guide them. I very much liked the idea of "teacher-writers being authors in every sense: professionals who claim authority with their own words and their work" (179).
Although I originally found this article to be much drier than the first, I found it to tie in quite nicely in regard to the idea of authenticity. When I find myself in a teaching position, it is very important to me that I stay relevant, publish, and collaborate with other educators to be the best teacher that I can be, and help my students in every way possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)