Williams writes, "Writing a love letter or making a dictionary entry, they would automatically take into account such factors as audience, purpose, intention, and tone. Most school- sponsored writing assignments, however, provide little in the way of context, so student responses often seem pointless, vague, and rambling" (Williams, 295). I believe in this statement because I believe that when students have a set audience they redirect their writing. It is more focused and changed to format who will be receiving the writing piece. However if the children are not taught these different formats in school how will they know what is appropriate when? If they are not taught how to write in a business situation (formal/respectful), what strategies to use when trying to be persuasive, how to back their argument in a debate, etc. Students are more effective writers when they are passionate and have a direct audience. As Williams points out in the end of chapter 9 it is important to give assignments that have real world connections in order to build up their writing skills, make students more effective writers, and teach different writing formats/contexts.
Design an assignment for a class (grade level does not matter).
Possible answers:
-poetry book in which everyone contributes to whether it be poetry, art, etc and is distributed to the grade/school
-write resumes for classroom jobs (line leader, paper passer, recess helper, etc)
-simulate an election (have speeches, debates, students reporting on the events, etc)
-get involved in the community and have students write a persuasive letter to someone/company about something they want to see changed
- have the students be pen pals with students in another state
- have a class newspaper that is released once a month
- have the students write, direct, produce a play for the school
- have the entire class collaborate on a book
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I am a Pencil
" That caught me off guard, made me think. Maybe I was talking nonsense, yet somehow it felt true, that Su Jung's imagination took her to scary places, places she didn't want to go. But even if i was right, what can a teacher do with that? How do you teach a kid to bravely follow her imagination, even when its scary? And should you? I had no answers to these questions, but there wasn't time to sort things through. I had to teach my lesson" (Swope, 53).
This book was all about Sam Swope and this class going through an adventure together. Everybody learned and struggled with different things on a daily basis. Swope definitely had expressivist ideas and methods. Allowing the students to write about and come up with their own intriguing/compelling ideas. He constantly spoke about imagination and developing the students. HE always wanted them to go with what they wanted to write. SWope told the students that if they ever wanted to write about something other than the assignment then to go for it. Swope learned a lot about each individual child (most of whom had struggles in their home lives). Here Swope begins to get his first lesson in balancing the child's home and school life. Without a doubt a teacher is a very important part of a student's life. Besides their parents a teacher is the person a young child sees the most in a given week. Teachers become emotional support and a counselor. Students, even young students, do have pent up emotions as seen with Su Jung above. They are going through things and do not always tell you. Swope struggles above with what is best for the student. Do you push and force the student to face their difficulties that are frightening them in hopes that then you can help them? Or do you purposely not push? What is your role as a teacher and how are you supposed to know what your students need? These questions come up for every teacher. I personally think that you truly learn these thing through experiences and then deal with them on a situational basis. It is a hard thing to do and most likely never gets easier.
This book was all about Sam Swope and this class going through an adventure together. Everybody learned and struggled with different things on a daily basis. Swope definitely had expressivist ideas and methods. Allowing the students to write about and come up with their own intriguing/compelling ideas. He constantly spoke about imagination and developing the students. HE always wanted them to go with what they wanted to write. SWope told the students that if they ever wanted to write about something other than the assignment then to go for it. Swope learned a lot about each individual child (most of whom had struggles in their home lives). Here Swope begins to get his first lesson in balancing the child's home and school life. Without a doubt a teacher is a very important part of a student's life. Besides their parents a teacher is the person a young child sees the most in a given week. Teachers become emotional support and a counselor. Students, even young students, do have pent up emotions as seen with Su Jung above. They are going through things and do not always tell you. Swope struggles above with what is best for the student. Do you push and force the student to face their difficulties that are frightening them in hopes that then you can help them? Or do you purposely not push? What is your role as a teacher and how are you supposed to know what your students need? These questions come up for every teacher. I personally think that you truly learn these thing through experiences and then deal with them on a situational basis. It is a hard thing to do and most likely never gets easier.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Technology article
Brabhill, J, T. (Jul., 2005). Multimliteracies Meet Methods: The Case for Digital Writing in English Education. English Education, Vol. 37, No. 4. 301-311. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40173204
The article was about information communication technoligies and how English education has and is changing. It deals with how English educators need to change the way they teach teachers about writing. Brabhill dicusses looking at the question of why not just how. The importance of linking and having knowledge about multiliteracies is stressed. Brabhill goes on to dicuss the changes that have occured thus far in education due to changes in technology.ICTs are able to expand interactivity as well as communication. Questions of where we go from here, what the relationship should be, realizing that ICTs can open new doors and change things. THe conclustion brings up the point that ICTs change the way we produce and recieve texts and writing
The article was about information communication technoligies and how English education has and is changing. It deals with how English educators need to change the way they teach teachers about writing. Brabhill dicusses looking at the question of why not just how. The importance of linking and having knowledge about multiliteracies is stressed. Brabhill goes on to dicuss the changes that have occured thus far in education due to changes in technology.ICTs are able to expand interactivity as well as communication. Questions of where we go from here, what the relationship should be, realizing that ICTs can open new doors and change things. THe conclustion brings up the point that ICTs change the way we produce and recieve texts and writing
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, February 1, 2010
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).
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).
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Williams pg. 43-53
What can be done to push teachers away from the current way writing is taught and is the current way completely ineffective?
It is understandable, as Williams points, why teachers today stick with what they are comfortable with when it comes to instruction on writing. If we could some how find a way to change the way writing is taught so that children come out with higher level skills that would be great. But does anybody actually have an alternative solution? There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching children the forms of how to write things.In fact I think that it is important for them to learn those things. If a person doesn't understand how a piece is structure that could seriously affect their understanding of the content written. The problem comes about when teachers feed students the content. When we get "cookie cutter" assignments. As long as the teacher does not feed the content along with the form no two student's work will come out the same.They will be engaged in the work and possibly learn something from it. This also goes with William's comment on page forty six related to grammar. He says that so much of a student's English is focused on mechanics but that it is an easy subject and, "just marginally related to what writing is about" (Williams, 46). I think just like structure grammar is essential to writing in the sense of understanding. The English language has rules that must be followed in people to comprehend what others are saying. A majority of school, writing time, is focused on teaching grammar but it clearly is not taught well enough. Yes, writing should be taught in a sense that shows there is more to it than grammar but grammar lessons need to be fixed desperately. Do I think there is a better way to teach writing, to make it exciting, fun, and back to an art form instead of something we all must learn? Yes. Do I, or anyone else actually have an answer to that question? Not that I have seen. For the time being we must concentrate on the system we have and work towards improvement of it.
Ten teachers can be teaching the exact same material but it would never look the same twice. Each teacher has their own style, techniques, and presence in the classroom (whether it be good or bad). I think differences and wonderful things are still able to come out of the way that students are taught writing today. I mean, we still have amazing novelists, journalists, writers, poets, authors, etc today. The system has to be working in some way doesn't it?
It is understandable, as Williams points, why teachers today stick with what they are comfortable with when it comes to instruction on writing. If we could some how find a way to change the way writing is taught so that children come out with higher level skills that would be great. But does anybody actually have an alternative solution? There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching children the forms of how to write things.In fact I think that it is important for them to learn those things. If a person doesn't understand how a piece is structure that could seriously affect their understanding of the content written. The problem comes about when teachers feed students the content. When we get "cookie cutter" assignments. As long as the teacher does not feed the content along with the form no two student's work will come out the same.They will be engaged in the work and possibly learn something from it. This also goes with William's comment on page forty six related to grammar. He says that so much of a student's English is focused on mechanics but that it is an easy subject and, "just marginally related to what writing is about" (Williams, 46). I think just like structure grammar is essential to writing in the sense of understanding. The English language has rules that must be followed in people to comprehend what others are saying. A majority of school, writing time, is focused on teaching grammar but it clearly is not taught well enough. Yes, writing should be taught in a sense that shows there is more to it than grammar but grammar lessons need to be fixed desperately. Do I think there is a better way to teach writing, to make it exciting, fun, and back to an art form instead of something we all must learn? Yes. Do I, or anyone else actually have an answer to that question? Not that I have seen. For the time being we must concentrate on the system we have and work towards improvement of it.
Ten teachers can be teaching the exact same material but it would never look the same twice. Each teacher has their own style, techniques, and presence in the classroom (whether it be good or bad). I think differences and wonderful things are still able to come out of the way that students are taught writing today. I mean, we still have amazing novelists, journalists, writers, poets, authors, etc today. The system has to be working in some way doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)