alternative research

Do you agree or disagree with Davis and Shadle's stance on research papers? If you agree how might you implement it in your future classroom? If you disagree explain why.

I thought Davis and Shadle brought up many good points that I had never even considered when it came to research papers.When I think of research papers I think of a long article in which I will not understand (or will have to spend a considerable amount of time deciphering), written by a person in the academic world. We are taught in schools that there is one way to do a research paper. It is hard, time consuming, very specific, and something to be dreaded. Davis not only shows that there are different ways to write a research paper but shows why the way we do it now is poor and gives a better alternative. I agree with the article that the way things are done now are understandably necessary but I also agree that it limits writers. You can only go so far when you are taught to do something one specific way. The ideas and examples given on alternative research papers, to me, were great. I loved the ideas because they are able to expand a student's creativity, exploration, excitement about learning, and teaches that there is more than one way to do something. Alternatives show students that research papers are not something to be dreaded. That finding information can be interesting and expand your product into something great. I also loved the concept of research being through the experiences you have had.

I think that this would be a great tool for the classroom. If I were to do this "activity" in my classroom I think I would make it into a unit, an ongoing project. I would bring into my classroom as many resources as possible, resources for finding answers (computers, books, etc) and resources for exploration (anything from sensory tables, plants, animals, etc. anything to get the kids thinking/wondering). This would encourage the kids to ask questions and do the work themselves in order to find the answers. I would allow them to form their own project whatever it might be (paper, video, interview, etc) and form their own questions and such. I believe that for the children to truly be engaged they have to be interested and excited about the topic.

Postmodern process

What is the theory of the post modern process and what does it mean?

I do not really have an answer to this discussion question mostly due to the fact that I do not understand the topic very well. I am not sure I follow what was being said in William's book or in Breuch's article. Focusing on what Williams wrote, I guess the part I got confused with is when the fact that meaning doesn't exist was brought up. It was said that words are not meant to mean anything and that meaning does not exist. This in turn leads to deconstructive reading. Obviously words literally do have meaning. They are our form of communication, the way we make sense of the world around us so what is meant by this. It is that in post modernism, things are left up to greater interpretation? That the reader is supposed to get from other authors writing pieces what they want to. But then the issue with that being the answer is that every author has a purpose for writing, so there is a point behind it whether the reader gets it or not. Then the Williams chapter begins discussing that postmodern theory does not "believe" in improving writers or differentiating between good and bad writing. Is this what we have been discussing in class regarding teachers never telling their students that they are wrong? For example the story Professor Martin told about a student's poem interpretation. I myself have an issue with this aspect of it, this may be due to the fact that I see things very black and white but I believe that there are wrong "answers" when it comes to writing. From Breuch's article I think I saw some parts of post modern in a better light, a better "spin" was put on things. From the article writing was shown as something that can not necessarily be taught. That writing is not knowledge that one person can just transfer to another, like math. Writing is something individual people have to experience and develop themselves. The method of writing(what we use as the three step process of writing) can not just be taught, followed and accomplished. Writing must be seen as an ongoing process.

Murray's article

Murray discusses the way writing is taught claiming that it should be taught as a process not as a product. Think about this and compare/contrast it to what you experienced in English classes. Was what you experienced effective, why/why not? Do you agree or disagree with Murray, explain.


Comparing Murray's article with my high school English experience I can see both similarities and differences. I had a mixture of teachers that used methods, exercises, and assignments in both ways. Most teachers would give us a prompt along with a rubric. For the most part, with the exception of some classes, it did not matter exactly how we got to the finished product. The grade at the end was a combination of meeting the requirements of the rubric and turning in all parts of our "process" in getting there. I feel that I had many opportunities to choose how I got to my finished product but not many in which I could choose what I wrote about. This is most likely due to the fact that writing was rolled up with literature, critical thinking, and other concepts we had to cover before the end of the year.

From my experiences with writing I think it is safe to say I will not be writing any masterpieces soon. Is this because of the writing instruction I received? I can write a good solid essay. I can write formal as well as informal letters to people. My emails, paragraphs, and work is all understandable and done well. Maybe the way I was taught to write was not the absolute best but I think I turned out just fine as a writer.
I hate to make it seem like I do not have an opinion on the matter but when asked if I agree or disagree with Murray I must say that I do not take one particular side over the other. I think that the typical way children are taught (how Murray perceived most children are taught) has a certain amount of value. Teachers should allow students to be creative, free, thinkers but they also have the responsibility of teaching their students the basics. Students need to be taught the basic ways of prewrite otherwise they will have no idea what it entails. Teachers have between 21-30 students in their classroom at a time. High school teachers see their students five times a week for forty-five minutes. Students need to be assessed whether they are understanding literature, understanding core concepts, writing well, and many other things. Teachers need to have to have something physical to grade to make sure that students are grasping the material. The way our country has school set up leads to the way our subjects are taught. Murray is right that the process and creativity/individuality of writing gets lost for most students. That perhaps we would have more/better writers if writing was taught differently. We need to find a way to meld these two concepts (product versus process).