The computer. I've often heard the power of the computer compared to the power of the printing press, but I've not heard the comparison between the computer and fire. Wow. That's a pretty powerful statement. I wonder if I agree.
Well, what has the computer transformed? It's transformed the cars we drive, the banking we do, the restaurants we frequent, even the car wash I use. It's transformed our ability to get up-to-the-minute information. Right? Now we have information overload. It's transformed the way architects design, the way music is distributed, even online shopping has transformed peoples' lives. Now it doesn't matter if you live in the middle-of-nowhere...you can even shop for designer shoes if you want.
It's transformed the way retail businesses do business - their inventory is always up-to-date, they know exactly how much money should be in the cash register, they know who has punched keys on any cash register (which is not really a cash register at all anymore - it's seriously a computer with a cash drawer...).
Although I can't remember all the institutions of a society, some of them are: government, religion, family, and education. I think that computers have transformed the way governments do business. I can complete my taxes online (well not really, but some people can!), add more money to my EZ-Pass account, or print out mailing labels for packages without ever stepping foot in the post office. From a religious perspective, the word is out on the web! Not only is information available about and from virtually any religious group - extremists included - but groups actively solicit new members online. Family is well represented on the web and I would wager to say the computers have transformed families. Communication is so much easier with email, blogs, and web pages. Of course if misused, that communication can be dangerous for families! Genealogical websites are at anyone's fingertips so digging for family dirt is just a keystroke away. That leaves education. Has education been affected by computers and technology? Oh absolutely! I remember how cutting edge I felt when I took an online course sometime in the mid 90's. It was such a thrill to plug into my phone jack with my 56k modem and "surf". Wow. Now people can get whole degrees online (as Ray pointed out in his comments about the University of Phoenix).
I guess the question is - is there anything that has not been touched by a computer? I'll have to give that one some thought. But I'm thinking that it really may have transformed our culture more than I even considered.
I just heard today that Bill Gates (whose billions can be attributed to the computer of course) was a major funding source for a program that is transporting millions of seeds to a vault somewhere in the Arctic to protect them from any disaster or doomsday type situation. His hope is that humans will still have a viable food source (that is of course, if they can get to the Arctic).
Oh- and on the topic of multimedia writing, I say "go for it." It's a fabulous opportunity to allow multiple intelligences to shine. I am not at all worried at the propsects of the "text" part of multimedia disappearing.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Last licks...
So what do we do with the basic writers? I don't think that eliminating basic writing classes is the answer. But are we trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? Perhaps we need to get a clear focus on the goal of a writing class. Is it to teach correct grammar and sentence structure? If it is, then maybe we should eliminate basic writing because I don't think that should be its focus. But, if the point of a writing class is to teach people how to communicate with whatever cognitive tools AND linguistic ability they possess, then we really should keep basic writing alive.
Basic writing doesn't mean "dumbing down." I also don't see basic writing as a "catch up" class. Rather, a basic writing course can serve the needs of a couple of key participants. One group would be those students who do not have a background in middle class language acquisition. Another group would be those students who were unable to learn to write through the traditional methods used in schools - maybe they are LD - maybe they just learn differently. Both groups of students are able to learn. And many in these groups can possess average or higher-than-average intelligence. But, I don't necessarily see these two groups of students as having the same needs. I guess I'm talking about some homogeneous grouping here. And for good reason - their needs are specific and must be addressed differently.
I regret that I'll be missing this class discussion. I am sure it will be fascinating.
Basic writing doesn't mean "dumbing down." I also don't see basic writing as a "catch up" class. Rather, a basic writing course can serve the needs of a couple of key participants. One group would be those students who do not have a background in middle class language acquisition. Another group would be those students who were unable to learn to write through the traditional methods used in schools - maybe they are LD - maybe they just learn differently. Both groups of students are able to learn. And many in these groups can possess average or higher-than-average intelligence. But, I don't necessarily see these two groups of students as having the same needs. I guess I'm talking about some homogeneous grouping here. And for good reason - their needs are specific and must be addressed differently.
I regret that I'll be missing this class discussion. I am sure it will be fascinating.
Read this "jawn"
I like your 'cognitive' style. Maybe that can be the new buzzword (buzz phrase?) in bars this summer. I never really thought about labeling the way a person solves a problem as an example of his/her cognitive style - but I like it.
Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences kept popping into my mind as I read Rose's work. I connected it to the profiles that Merlin Wittrock (VV, 349) built. When he talked about the field-independent people being intrinsically motivated and individualistic, it made me think of a person with an intrapersonal strength. His description of the field-dependent person as a more socially aware, extrinsically motivated being ties into Gardner's interpersonal intelligence. At the end of that section on Cognitive Style, Rose talks about students who don't perform in the way that we've been taught and how that may indicate a limited opportunity (or a lack of background knowledge) as opposed to a deficit in analytical ability. It made me think about Gardner's theory again as there are many ways to get the job done. It doesn't have to fit the design that we know or are most comfortable with.
When Rose talks about Paul Broca's work from 1865, it reminded me of the history of learning disabilities. Broca's work on brain hemispheres laid the cornerstone for later brain research that led to the much later "discovery" of learning disabilities. I was never a real fan of the right brain/left brain hemisphericity theories - and I didn't get the sense that Mike Rose felt they were too scientifically valid either! (note the exclamation point)
But I am a Piaget fan. Sometimes I feel like I can actually SEE students move from concrete-operational to formal-operational! I understand Rose's reservations about applying this developmental theory to adults. I do think that the brain can continue to develop even into early adulthood - definitely while in college - and that some people may be able to think more abstractly in college than they could in high school. But whether the test directions are explicitly explained is a question I can't answer. I can certainly believe that, if the directions were not explicit, then I understand the a"failure to reason or a failure to understand" argument.
One final comment about Rose's piece and that is related to his comments on page 374 when he talks about the most troubling aspect of the orality-literacy construct. I completely agree with his point about the way language is used in the urban ghetto and the attempts by those who speak "urban ghetto" to make sense of the uses of print. I see this all the time. I can practically taste the frustration that urban writers have when they search for a "real word" or a "school word" (or do I mean a "middle class word"?)to use instead of an urban word. Take, for example, the urban word "jawn". "Jawn" means 'a thing' - but it can also mean 'a person' - and it can even mean 'a feeling'. That's pretty vague - and they use it for everything. I've heard kids say, "You know that jawn?" And so I query..."What do you mean by jawn?" And so it goes...
The point is that when an urban student is asked to use more specific language while speaking, itcan be a daunting task. Add writing to the mix, and it becomes even more frustrating.
Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences kept popping into my mind as I read Rose's work. I connected it to the profiles that Merlin Wittrock (VV, 349) built. When he talked about the field-independent people being intrinsically motivated and individualistic, it made me think of a person with an intrapersonal strength. His description of the field-dependent person as a more socially aware, extrinsically motivated being ties into Gardner's interpersonal intelligence. At the end of that section on Cognitive Style, Rose talks about students who don't perform in the way that we've been taught and how that may indicate a limited opportunity (or a lack of background knowledge) as opposed to a deficit in analytical ability. It made me think about Gardner's theory again as there are many ways to get the job done. It doesn't have to fit the design that we know or are most comfortable with.
When Rose talks about Paul Broca's work from 1865, it reminded me of the history of learning disabilities. Broca's work on brain hemispheres laid the cornerstone for later brain research that led to the much later "discovery" of learning disabilities. I was never a real fan of the right brain/left brain hemisphericity theories - and I didn't get the sense that Mike Rose felt they were too scientifically valid either! (note the exclamation point)
But I am a Piaget fan. Sometimes I feel like I can actually SEE students move from concrete-operational to formal-operational! I understand Rose's reservations about applying this developmental theory to adults. I do think that the brain can continue to develop even into early adulthood - definitely while in college - and that some people may be able to think more abstractly in college than they could in high school. But whether the test directions are explicitly explained is a question I can't answer. I can certainly believe that, if the directions were not explicit, then I understand the a"failure to reason or a failure to understand" argument.
One final comment about Rose's piece and that is related to his comments on page 374 when he talks about the most troubling aspect of the orality-literacy construct. I completely agree with his point about the way language is used in the urban ghetto and the attempts by those who speak "urban ghetto" to make sense of the uses of print. I see this all the time. I can practically taste the frustration that urban writers have when they search for a "real word" or a "school word" (or do I mean a "middle class word"?)to use instead of an urban word. Take, for example, the urban word "jawn". "Jawn" means 'a thing' - but it can also mean 'a person' - and it can even mean 'a feeling'. That's pretty vague - and they use it for everything. I've heard kids say, "You know that jawn?" And so I query..."What do you mean by jawn?" And so it goes...
The point is that when an urban student is asked to use more specific language while speaking, itcan be a daunting task. Add writing to the mix, and it becomes even more frustrating.
The bottom line
I found myself shaking my head in agreement SO often while reading about the basic writing dilemma. Of course that didn't surprise me. Rather, it frustrated me that we continue to toss around the blame and the problem still exists - even 30 years (or longer) later. Wow.
Mina Shaughnessy hits the nail on the head on the first page of "Diving In" (VV, 311) when she references the phrase "catching up." Even though she wrote about this in 1976, I hear this phrase almost daily - and it's 2008. In fact, as I write this, courses are being developed at my school to "catch kids up" and "double dose" them in math and reading so they can "meet standard." It makes me want to throw up.
Although her developmental scale for teachers is not new to me, it so so relevant even today. Not only does it hold true for basic writers; but it also exists for basic readers and basic mathematicians. I had a conversation just last year with a second year teacher who wondered how she could have a whole class fail. I listened to her lament about all the things the students weren't doing (not doing their homework, not studying for tests, etc). I encouraged her to step back and see if the tasks she assigned were meeting the needs of her students. In the most non-threatening way that I knew, I queried whether there was anything that she could do differently. Honestly, I don't think she ever thought about that. I'd like to say that this was a revelation and that she just changed everything to try to better meet their needs. But, this story doesn't have that kind of an ending.
I know this scenario happens in schools everywhere in every subject and in every grade. I just read a letter to the editor in The Patriot News that suggested we move forward with the final exit exams for seniors because students have to do their part and learn when information is presented. Of course I agree that students must be involved in their learning. That's a no brainer. But, as in the case of the basic writing dilemma in colleges and high schools everywhere, the teacher has a huge a responsibility to look at "the task s/he is asking to students to perform "(VV 316) and ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was designed.
"But as we come to know these students better, we begin to see that the greatest barrier to our work with them is our ignorance of them and of the very subject we have contracted to teach." Yeah.
Mina Shaughnessy hits the nail on the head on the first page of "Diving In" (VV, 311) when she references the phrase "catching up." Even though she wrote about this in 1976, I hear this phrase almost daily - and it's 2008. In fact, as I write this, courses are being developed at my school to "catch kids up" and "double dose" them in math and reading so they can "meet standard." It makes me want to throw up.
Although her developmental scale for teachers is not new to me, it so so relevant even today. Not only does it hold true for basic writers; but it also exists for basic readers and basic mathematicians. I had a conversation just last year with a second year teacher who wondered how she could have a whole class fail. I listened to her lament about all the things the students weren't doing (not doing their homework, not studying for tests, etc). I encouraged her to step back and see if the tasks she assigned were meeting the needs of her students. In the most non-threatening way that I knew, I queried whether there was anything that she could do differently. Honestly, I don't think she ever thought about that. I'd like to say that this was a revelation and that she just changed everything to try to better meet their needs. But, this story doesn't have that kind of an ending.
I know this scenario happens in schools everywhere in every subject and in every grade. I just read a letter to the editor in The Patriot News that suggested we move forward with the final exit exams for seniors because students have to do their part and learn when information is presented. Of course I agree that students must be involved in their learning. That's a no brainer. But, as in the case of the basic writing dilemma in colleges and high schools everywhere, the teacher has a huge a responsibility to look at "the task s/he is asking to students to perform "(VV 316) and ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was designed.
"But as we come to know these students better, we begin to see that the greatest barrier to our work with them is our ignorance of them and of the very subject we have contracted to teach." Yeah.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Does the 'regular Joe' stand a chance?
If cultural studies are indeed, a "more generalized response to the rise of mass society and the forms of cultural experience characteristic of modernity, the metropolis, and the emergence of the "people" (or the popular masses) as a force in history" (Tate, 77), then the 'regular guy' and the 'rhetoric of the regular guy' should be the center. It makes sense that the effect of cultural studies on composition would be an attempt to move the writer away from the literary critic mode to one that reconnects the writer with his/her ordinary experiences. If we want people to write, they have to have a frame of reference for it. They have to be able to relate to what they write about. They have to be able to relate to the discourse community that reads their work.
The prevalent practice of hegemony - where the leadership or predominant influence comes from the "elites" (or maybe the instructor???) -doesn't encourage student writers to write about their ordinary experiences. Rather, they are asked to write about situations, events, literature, etc for which they have no frame of reference. Then, in order to give these writers a frame of reference, teachers spend time analyzing the literature and performing close readings. So, the composition class becomes a literary analysis class and the writing goes away. This is the point George and Trimbur make on page 78 of A Guide to Composition Pedagogies.
And, what's it all for? So that the writers can write about something that satisifies the academic discourse community. The discourse community proved a common thread in both George and Trimbur's Cultural Studies and Composition (Tate, 71-91) and Bizzell's Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing (Villaneueva, 387-411). Does the discourse community impede the truest, most pure use of composition as it relates to cultural studies? It appears so.
Bizzell's discussion about the outer-directed model of language and thought show that discourse communities are its entire focus (Villaenueva, 391). Obviously they are powerful. Even if writing-across-the-curriculum programs are being used "as a way to demystify the conventions of the academic discourse community" (Villaneueva, 392), I don't think they can effectively do it. There are still certain ACADEMIC discourse community expecations regardless of the subject matter. For example, a writer would be penalized for writing 'This is 4 ppl 2 read' in science class, math class, English class...I'd wager that this would be unacceptable for every class! It's just not appropriate for the academic discourse community. Yet, it's perfectly suitable for the student's text-messaging discourse community. Maybe we need to do a better job reminding students about "appropriate time and place." Bizzell hits the nail on the head when she says that "...educational problems associated with language use should be understood as difficulties with joining an unfamiliar discourse community" (Villaneueva, 397). I completely agree with the point she makes on page 401 in relation to difficulties with goal setting and that perhaps, these writers are completely unaware that certain conventions even exist in other discourse communities. When we look at it through the academic filter that we are so accustomed to, this seems incomprehensible. But I think she's right----understanding discourse communities and having background knowledge go hand-in-hand.
The prevalent practice of hegemony - where the leadership or predominant influence comes from the "elites" (or maybe the instructor???) -doesn't encourage student writers to write about their ordinary experiences. Rather, they are asked to write about situations, events, literature, etc for which they have no frame of reference. Then, in order to give these writers a frame of reference, teachers spend time analyzing the literature and performing close readings. So, the composition class becomes a literary analysis class and the writing goes away. This is the point George and Trimbur make on page 78 of A Guide to Composition Pedagogies.
And, what's it all for? So that the writers can write about something that satisifies the academic discourse community. The discourse community proved a common thread in both George and Trimbur's Cultural Studies and Composition (Tate, 71-91) and Bizzell's Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing (Villaneueva, 387-411). Does the discourse community impede the truest, most pure use of composition as it relates to cultural studies? It appears so.
Bizzell's discussion about the outer-directed model of language and thought show that discourse communities are its entire focus (Villaenueva, 391). Obviously they are powerful. Even if writing-across-the-curriculum programs are being used "as a way to demystify the conventions of the academic discourse community" (Villaneueva, 392), I don't think they can effectively do it. There are still certain ACADEMIC discourse community expecations regardless of the subject matter. For example, a writer would be penalized for writing 'This is 4 ppl 2 read' in science class, math class, English class...I'd wager that this would be unacceptable for every class! It's just not appropriate for the academic discourse community. Yet, it's perfectly suitable for the student's text-messaging discourse community. Maybe we need to do a better job reminding students about "appropriate time and place." Bizzell hits the nail on the head when she says that "...educational problems associated with language use should be understood as difficulties with joining an unfamiliar discourse community" (Villaneueva, 397). I completely agree with the point she makes on page 401 in relation to difficulties with goal setting and that perhaps, these writers are completely unaware that certain conventions even exist in other discourse communities. When we look at it through the academic filter that we are so accustomed to, this seems incomprehensible. But I think she's right----understanding discourse communities and having background knowledge go hand-in-hand.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The real me
Well I have to say that I learned something about myself from these readings. I learned that I am an Expressivist at heart. I completely agree that writing is all about reflection and self-discovery. Easy to say, but hard to teach! In fact, I'm finding it REALLY HARD to teach!
I was introduced to Peter Elbow's work last summer when I participated in the Capitol Area Summer Writing Project. I've used lots of his ideas in the classroom for some time - but I didn't realize that it was his work. This year I made a conscious effort to introduce my reading students to Elbow's notion of freewriting. What I've found is that it's not so easy to get buy-in. For example, one of my goals for the reading remediation classes I teach is to get kids to LIKE to read. So, for the first 15 minutes of class, they just get to read. They can read anything they want (appropriate for school of course!) - and, here's where the conscious effort to freewriting comes into play - after those 15 minutes, they write about what they've read for 10 minutes non-stop. My success rates vary greatly.
I find that prompts help. And the more specific the prompt, the better. I expected a prompt like "Reflect on what you just read" would give students the license to write, write, write. But what I found is that the vagueness of it doesn't give my students enough direction [It is notable that many of my students are most successful when given step-by-step instructions for any task]. So I've tried giving more directed prompts like "Make a text-to-self connection between what you read today and something that actually happened in your own life." When I do this, students are able to write more. Often they finish well before 10 minutes elapse. I haven't yet found the right words to get them to continue on. I want them to be able to pull a thread out of something they wrote and expand on it or take it in another direction. I haven't been able to make that happen.
BUT I have a new idea! I'm going to model freewriting. Although it sounds like a no-brainer, I haven't done that. The idea came to me after we had a fabulous class discussion that started out when a student read her "read and reflect" that she had just written. She wrote about a mom whose son just committed murder and she hid his guns when the police came to their apartment. The question"What would you do if you were a parent?" sparked lively conversation and debate. Then another student talked about the Tookie Williams biography he was reading. (Tookie Williams is the founder of the Crips [an LA based gang] who died in prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder). This launched a great discussion about prisons and humane treatment of prisoners. As we're having this conversation, I'm animatedly telling my students that "This is what I want you to do in your freewrites!...This is IT!" And what they told me was that it's so much EASIER to TELL it than it is to write it. That got me thinking...and I realized that they needed to see how a conversation in one's head can easily be put on paper. It also made me realize how critical the social end of writing is. And haven't the Expressivists known that all along?
I was introduced to Peter Elbow's work last summer when I participated in the Capitol Area Summer Writing Project. I've used lots of his ideas in the classroom for some time - but I didn't realize that it was his work. This year I made a conscious effort to introduce my reading students to Elbow's notion of freewriting. What I've found is that it's not so easy to get buy-in. For example, one of my goals for the reading remediation classes I teach is to get kids to LIKE to read. So, for the first 15 minutes of class, they just get to read. They can read anything they want (appropriate for school of course!) - and, here's where the conscious effort to freewriting comes into play - after those 15 minutes, they write about what they've read for 10 minutes non-stop. My success rates vary greatly.
I find that prompts help. And the more specific the prompt, the better. I expected a prompt like "Reflect on what you just read" would give students the license to write, write, write. But what I found is that the vagueness of it doesn't give my students enough direction [It is notable that many of my students are most successful when given step-by-step instructions for any task]. So I've tried giving more directed prompts like "Make a text-to-self connection between what you read today and something that actually happened in your own life." When I do this, students are able to write more. Often they finish well before 10 minutes elapse. I haven't yet found the right words to get them to continue on. I want them to be able to pull a thread out of something they wrote and expand on it or take it in another direction. I haven't been able to make that happen.
BUT I have a new idea! I'm going to model freewriting. Although it sounds like a no-brainer, I haven't done that. The idea came to me after we had a fabulous class discussion that started out when a student read her "read and reflect" that she had just written. She wrote about a mom whose son just committed murder and she hid his guns when the police came to their apartment. The question"What would you do if you were a parent?" sparked lively conversation and debate. Then another student talked about the Tookie Williams biography he was reading. (Tookie Williams is the founder of the Crips [an LA based gang] who died in prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder). This launched a great discussion about prisons and humane treatment of prisoners. As we're having this conversation, I'm animatedly telling my students that "This is what I want you to do in your freewrites!...This is IT!" And what they told me was that it's so much EASIER to TELL it than it is to write it. That got me thinking...and I realized that they needed to see how a conversation in one's head can easily be put on paper. It also made me realize how critical the social end of writing is. And haven't the Expressivists known that all along?
Sunday, February 3, 2008
It's about the writER, not the writING.
That's the informal motto of the Writing Center that we developed two years ago at the school where I teach. What I didn't realize was that this fell under the umbrella of process pedagogy! When students come in to our center, they seem to fall into two categories. Some of them come with a draft and are looking for a proofreader. They are often dismayed to find out that this is not our primary function. When we work with them to develop their own proofreading skills, they are always amazed at the number of their own errors they can find if they just practice a few simple techniques like reading their own work aloud. The other category of writer that frequents our center are the ones who do not know where or how to begin.
I found myself saying "um hmm" and "yes" quite often while reading Flowers and Hayes' A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory (p. 273-297). Of particular relevance to my teaching was the section where they discussed the stage models of writing. We subscribe to the stage model in the writing center as well. I find it to be a framework to help writers recognize the components of the process - and, in an even more basic way, that writing is, indeed, a process.
I would even call myself a fan of the writing process model - I do believe that good writers use the prewriting, writing, and revision phases when they compose; however, it is not necessarily a linear process - it can and should be recursive. In that vein, I agree with the process advocates who criticize this composing process as stifling and not engaging the voice of the writer. But I have to say (again) that it's the framework that helps those most needy writers. It gives them a starting point. It gives them benchmarks to guide their writing. I theorize that, with time, they will internalize this process and make it almost subconscious. Then maybe they can move to a less linear approach...
In Flowers and Hayes' work, they discuss the planning process that writers use. Many of the writers I work with break down in this phase. It's the sub-process of organizing and making meaning of text that many writers find challenging. And often the actual generation of those ideas is fuzzy for them. Their understanding of the task or the information they are asked to use is fragmented and unconnected so they cannot make meaning of it. Then it snowballs. Their organization suffers because they cannot connect their thoughts and information. Goal-setting cannot occur as readily because they are unclear about what their goals should even be.
From there, translation is often a challenge. I couldn't agree more that this translation piece becomes an extra burden for writers who cannot multi-task both the planning piece and the translation piece(p. 282). They do become overwhelmed and often choose to either pay attention to content or the writing itself - but not both. I've even taking over the physical act of handwriting for those students in an effort to free up their minds to the content piece. We've had limited success using voice-recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking) to help certain students free up more of their brain power for goal-setting, reviewing, and monitoring. It's not that these writers can't think of things to say -- they often can! It's just that they cannot handle to complexity of all the different tasks they have to perform simultaneously while writing.
Lad Tobin raises a fine point about finding a happy medium between the process pedagogues and the post-process fans (A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, 15). In my experience, when the most needy writers are given the freedom to write about a topic completely chosen by them, it makes the idea generation piece easier. But they still need the framework of a process to guide and organize their thoughts. Mini-lessons can be just the answer to help students develop skills that don't come naturally. In this way they can find their voice and develop as writers both creatively and mechanically.
I found myself saying "um hmm" and "yes" quite often while reading Flowers and Hayes' A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory (p. 273-297). Of particular relevance to my teaching was the section where they discussed the stage models of writing. We subscribe to the stage model in the writing center as well. I find it to be a framework to help writers recognize the components of the process - and, in an even more basic way, that writing is, indeed, a process.
I would even call myself a fan of the writing process model - I do believe that good writers use the prewriting, writing, and revision phases when they compose; however, it is not necessarily a linear process - it can and should be recursive. In that vein, I agree with the process advocates who criticize this composing process as stifling and not engaging the voice of the writer. But I have to say (again) that it's the framework that helps those most needy writers. It gives them a starting point. It gives them benchmarks to guide their writing. I theorize that, with time, they will internalize this process and make it almost subconscious. Then maybe they can move to a less linear approach...
In Flowers and Hayes' work, they discuss the planning process that writers use. Many of the writers I work with break down in this phase. It's the sub-process of organizing and making meaning of text that many writers find challenging. And often the actual generation of those ideas is fuzzy for them. Their understanding of the task or the information they are asked to use is fragmented and unconnected so they cannot make meaning of it. Then it snowballs. Their organization suffers because they cannot connect their thoughts and information. Goal-setting cannot occur as readily because they are unclear about what their goals should even be.
From there, translation is often a challenge. I couldn't agree more that this translation piece becomes an extra burden for writers who cannot multi-task both the planning piece and the translation piece(p. 282). They do become overwhelmed and often choose to either pay attention to content or the writing itself - but not both. I've even taking over the physical act of handwriting for those students in an effort to free up their minds to the content piece. We've had limited success using voice-recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking) to help certain students free up more of their brain power for goal-setting, reviewing, and monitoring. It's not that these writers can't think of things to say -- they often can! It's just that they cannot handle to complexity of all the different tasks they have to perform simultaneously while writing.
Lad Tobin raises a fine point about finding a happy medium between the process pedagogues and the post-process fans (A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, 15). In my experience, when the most needy writers are given the freedom to write about a topic completely chosen by them, it makes the idea generation piece easier. But they still need the framework of a process to guide and organize their thoughts. Mini-lessons can be just the answer to help students develop skills that don't come naturally. In this way they can find their voice and develop as writers both creatively and mechanically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)