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.
Monday, February 18, 2008
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.
Yeow! That grammar chapter was an eye opener...
I'm wondering if Julie intentionally used our class discussion last Thursday to "foreshadow" this chapter! First, I have to say that I learned something new. I have not heard of any of these studies that show the teaching of formal grammer to be ineffective. That was fascinating - but I cannot say that I wholeheartedly agree. I don't think that will surprise anyone. But let me just say that for the people in the world who grow up being read to as young children and reading voraciously throughout their lives, explicit instruction in the rules of grammar probably probably is unnecessary. I do agree and believe that they just implicity learn. The connection between reading and writing has been widely studied; and, the studies almost always show that writers benefit substantially from their reading background knowledge .
I'd like to know more about that 1979 New Zealand study done by W.B. Elley, I. H Barham, H. Lame and M. Wyllie. I want to know about their student sample. I don't doubt the generalizability of it (unlike Janice Neuleib); rather, what I wonder about is the makeup of that student body. For the results to be negligible, that might mean that the students whose writing improved after grammar instruction was balanced out by those whose writing did not.
Check out this website - http://www.msu.edu/~sandinkr/grammarwhybother.htm In it, Stephen Krashen cites this study in a way that makes more sense to me. If you don't know anything about Krashen, he's a reading and ELL (English Language Learners - formerly known as English as Second Language learners) guru. He's also discussed on page 219 in Cross Talk in Comp Theory. He says that grammar instruction shouldn't necessarily be at the core of English instruction, but it does serve a valuable purpose. It's the editing purpose that most strongly connected for me.
From my experience teaching learning disabled and/or at-risk students to read (and we're talking high school students here), I have to say that I have seen dramatic improvement in their ability to read the written word when they learn (through direct and explicit instruction) to apply specific rules related to phonemics and syllabication. Although I haven't explicitly taught many rules of grammar, I am teaching a unit on spelling rules to 11th graders (the "y" rule, "drop the e" rule, and the "doubling" rule). They tell me that they are helpful and they do apply them when they write. Could they be blowing smoke? Well, yeah - but I don't think they are...
That grammar chapter hit home in so many ways...on page 214 when Jean Whyte talks about oral language functions developing differently in readers and non-readers- I see that ALL the time! This reminds me of our conversation about television sets and inner city children. Julie made the point that virtually every inner-city home has at least one television set. Yet urban students aren't developing nearly the early language skills as suburban kids. I've not really thought about that television argument; but, upon further reflection, one point that must be made is that television is not really interactive. Kids can watch it, listen to it, and learn language from it. But they can't respond to it and receive feedback about the language they are using. This speaks to Robin's example about correcting her four year old daughter who is just learning about verb tense. Televisions can't do that! And, it's the misuse of verb tense in the social language of some inner city kids that is a grammatical nightmare. There's no Robin there to correct the urban child who says "I been done had that" instead of "I've done that." This is when we need to explicitly teach the rules of grammar in school. Certain sectors of society do not model proper grammar when speaking. And, although I'm all in favor of allowing language to evolve, at this point in our society, this misuse seems to widen the gap between those who are educated and those who are not (whether real or perceived).
The argument was also made that most grammar rules can be internalized by reading the written word. I agree. For most people, they can look at a sentence, and based on what they know from reading, they can tell if something doesn't seem right. But I can tell you from experience that there is a small percentage of the population who cannot. When asked to re-read their work to make sure things "sound" right, they still can't identify problem spots. It's these people who, in my humble opinion, DO benefit from grammar instruction!
We started a writing center at The Milton Hershey School last year. We employ a minimalist tutoring strategy there where we do not write on a student's paper at all. When Richard Haswell discussed minimal marking on page 223, it validated the techniques we use in the writing center. And it really works! Even the poorest writers can usually identify an error if we point out the general location of the error. By the way... we also read Stephen North's work when we were researching our writing center model. It was good to reconnect with his work when I The Making of Knowledge in Composition. It was interesting to read how disjointed the research on composition has been.
Britton's analogy on page 216 that grammar study is like forcing starving people to master the use of a knife and fork before allowing them to eat is a little dramatic. Writers who do not know the rules of grammar are certainly able to communicate through the written word. However, it is tedious to read the work of someone who does not know spelling rules and basic sentence structure. Sometimes the writer's message gets lost in the translation. This cycles back to Stephen Krashen's opinion that grammar does serve a purpose - and I have to say that it's my opinion too!
I'd like to know more about that 1979 New Zealand study done by W.B. Elley, I. H Barham, H. Lame and M. Wyllie. I want to know about their student sample. I don't doubt the generalizability of it (unlike Janice Neuleib); rather, what I wonder about is the makeup of that student body. For the results to be negligible, that might mean that the students whose writing improved after grammar instruction was balanced out by those whose writing did not.
Check out this website - http://www.msu.edu/~sandinkr/grammarwhybother.htm In it, Stephen Krashen cites this study in a way that makes more sense to me. If you don't know anything about Krashen, he's a reading and ELL (English Language Learners - formerly known as English as Second Language learners) guru. He's also discussed on page 219 in Cross Talk in Comp Theory. He says that grammar instruction shouldn't necessarily be at the core of English instruction, but it does serve a valuable purpose. It's the editing purpose that most strongly connected for me.
From my experience teaching learning disabled and/or at-risk students to read (and we're talking high school students here), I have to say that I have seen dramatic improvement in their ability to read the written word when they learn (through direct and explicit instruction) to apply specific rules related to phonemics and syllabication. Although I haven't explicitly taught many rules of grammar, I am teaching a unit on spelling rules to 11th graders (the "y" rule, "drop the e" rule, and the "doubling" rule). They tell me that they are helpful and they do apply them when they write. Could they be blowing smoke? Well, yeah - but I don't think they are...
That grammar chapter hit home in so many ways...on page 214 when Jean Whyte talks about oral language functions developing differently in readers and non-readers- I see that ALL the time! This reminds me of our conversation about television sets and inner city children. Julie made the point that virtually every inner-city home has at least one television set. Yet urban students aren't developing nearly the early language skills as suburban kids. I've not really thought about that television argument; but, upon further reflection, one point that must be made is that television is not really interactive. Kids can watch it, listen to it, and learn language from it. But they can't respond to it and receive feedback about the language they are using. This speaks to Robin's example about correcting her four year old daughter who is just learning about verb tense. Televisions can't do that! And, it's the misuse of verb tense in the social language of some inner city kids that is a grammatical nightmare. There's no Robin there to correct the urban child who says "I been done had that" instead of "I've done that." This is when we need to explicitly teach the rules of grammar in school. Certain sectors of society do not model proper grammar when speaking. And, although I'm all in favor of allowing language to evolve, at this point in our society, this misuse seems to widen the gap between those who are educated and those who are not (whether real or perceived).
The argument was also made that most grammar rules can be internalized by reading the written word. I agree. For most people, they can look at a sentence, and based on what they know from reading, they can tell if something doesn't seem right. But I can tell you from experience that there is a small percentage of the population who cannot. When asked to re-read their work to make sure things "sound" right, they still can't identify problem spots. It's these people who, in my humble opinion, DO benefit from grammar instruction!
We started a writing center at The Milton Hershey School last year. We employ a minimalist tutoring strategy there where we do not write on a student's paper at all. When Richard Haswell discussed minimal marking on page 223, it validated the techniques we use in the writing center. And it really works! Even the poorest writers can usually identify an error if we point out the general location of the error. By the way... we also read Stephen North's work when we were researching our writing center model. It was good to reconnect with his work when I The Making of Knowledge in Composition. It was interesting to read how disjointed the research on composition has been.
Britton's analogy on page 216 that grammar study is like forcing starving people to master the use of a knife and fork before allowing them to eat is a little dramatic. Writers who do not know the rules of grammar are certainly able to communicate through the written word. However, it is tedious to read the work of someone who does not know spelling rules and basic sentence structure. Sometimes the writer's message gets lost in the translation. This cycles back to Stephen Krashen's opinion that grammar does serve a purpose - and I have to say that it's my opinion too!
Has writing really evolved over time?
Has writing really evolved over time? After reading A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition, I wonder. We are still greatly influenced by the Roman five-stage model of speech composing and, although prewriting wasn’t really acknowledged until much later, its roots can most definitely be traced to the Roman stage of invention or discovering ideas.
As we look at writing today and the influences of culture and diversity within it (worldwide), I’m not sure that there can ever be a ‘standard’ discourse of writing anymore. I do fully believe though that writing can, and will, always function as a social thermometer regardless of where the writer lives or his/her circumstances.
I was not surprised to find out that once writing became redirected to serve religious as opposed to political ends, it became prescriptive, structured, and more rigid. I find that, to this day, organized religion, in general, is quite prescriptive, structured, and rigid! It is cool that Erasmus tried to revive the classics and was seeking history as a way to right the wrongs that he saw.
Wouldn’t Ramus’ idea “to clothe one’s ideas in the most elegant dress possible” just propagate elitist thought? And wasn’t that the plan? To keep the masses from acquiring this critical skill?
It’s plausible that we can trace our present-day challenges with diversity and how that wreaks havoc on “standard language” to this very mindset. Even back in the day, people argued against Ramus because they saw that writing, as a tool, could provide an outlet for showing virtue and moral code for all to learn by.
Bain’s work on essay structure makes me, again, question whether we really are “inventing” writing or just “reinventing” it. Of course we write to produce desired emotions. And how many different structures are there?
It’s the rigidity that kept writing from becoming a vehicle for all social classes to use. When the rules, structure, and even specific lists of approved authors were only taught to the few, then the “many” are conveniently not allowed that outlet. And that was planful. That was political to keep the “masses” from being able to mobilize through the written word. I like knowing that NCTE was really an outgrowth of similar frustrations.
As we look at writing today and the influences of culture and diversity within it (worldwide), I’m not sure that there can ever be a ‘standard’ discourse of writing anymore. I do fully believe though that writing can, and will, always function as a social thermometer regardless of where the writer lives or his/her circumstances.
I was not surprised to find out that once writing became redirected to serve religious as opposed to political ends, it became prescriptive, structured, and more rigid. I find that, to this day, organized religion, in general, is quite prescriptive, structured, and rigid! It is cool that Erasmus tried to revive the classics and was seeking history as a way to right the wrongs that he saw.
Wouldn’t Ramus’ idea “to clothe one’s ideas in the most elegant dress possible” just propagate elitist thought? And wasn’t that the plan? To keep the masses from acquiring this critical skill?
It’s plausible that we can trace our present-day challenges with diversity and how that wreaks havoc on “standard language” to this very mindset. Even back in the day, people argued against Ramus because they saw that writing, as a tool, could provide an outlet for showing virtue and moral code for all to learn by.
Bain’s work on essay structure makes me, again, question whether we really are “inventing” writing or just “reinventing” it. Of course we write to produce desired emotions. And how many different structures are there?
It’s the rigidity that kept writing from becoming a vehicle for all social classes to use. When the rules, structure, and even specific lists of approved authors were only taught to the few, then the “many” are conveniently not allowed that outlet. And that was planful. That was political to keep the “masses” from being able to mobilize through the written word. I like knowing that NCTE was really an outgrowth of similar frustrations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)