After looking at three, maybe four of the textbooks to choose from for our review, I chose one that had colored shapes on the cover. How very toddler of me. Upon careful examination of the cover, as one of the guidelines suggested, I made an interpretation. Inside a black rectangle are 18 square boxes, each containing a colored shape or symbol; some are elementary such as a triangle or circle, while most are rather obtuse and difficult to identify. Once I had skimmed the book, I found the shapes to symbolize perfectly the content within as basic writing methods are intertwined with complex writing samples followed by critical interrogation. A curious formula perhaps for the first year writing student to decipher. From Inquiry to Academic Writing, written by Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky, appears to be a fine choice for a first year composition instructor as it contains insightful, relevant articles with corresponding inquiries that the teacher may pick and choose from. From preface to index, Academic Writing is undeniably thorough in the teachings of writing and skillfully develops the relationship between reading and academic interpretation. Given the dynamics of the instruction, I believe From Inquiry to Academic Writing best suited for a new professor of advanced composition.
The preface for instructors begins by presenting the authors' pedagogical theory of composition as conversational, social in act, and catalytic in the production of knowledge. I immediately thought of Kenneth Bruffee's "Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind" and the direct influence it seemingly had on Greene and Lidinsky. Bruffee states, "Writing always has its roots deep in the acquired ability to carry on the social symbolic exchange we call conversation" (551). Now to quote directly from the textbook: "Throughout, we present academic writing as conversational-as a collegial exchange of ideas, undertaken in a spirit of collaboration in the pursuit of new knowledge...we encourage students to see themselves as makers of knowledge" (iii). And Bruffee again, "Collaborative learning models how knowledge is generated, how it changes and grows" (556). Rebecca Moore Howard reinforces the relationship between collaboration and knowledge in Collaborative Pedagogy as she asserts, "When teachers are no longer dispensing knowledge in lectures but are guiding students in the collaborative process of discovering and constructing knowledge, students are empowered" (57). I didn't expect to find such concise parallelism in composition theory, and so quickly. But there it is in the first paragraph of the book. It's oddly rewarding to discover one of the theories of study thus far in such black and white form, in a textbook, used as practical method.
NOT FINISHED
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Chaos
I found, ironically, the selection by Ann E. Berthoff to be a little chaotic to interepert. I just used the word chaotic to reflect the state of confusion I was in, which is only one of its meanings. Here are additional meanings of the word chaos: a state of things in which chance is supreme; the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system; the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms. It is the last definition of chaos which is applied to Berthoff's theory of teaching composition. The "primordial matter" in this case are the thoughts, memories, conversations, and ideas that when bound together to form language come to convey meaning. "Meanings change as we think about them; statements and events, significances and interpretations can mean different things to different people at different times" (649). Only when I was able to define chaos in the way that Berthoff does did I find meaning in her language.
Towards the end of the selection, Berthoff reveals a passage similar to one of Bruffee's in stating that, "A writer is in dialogue with his various selves and with his audience" (650). We'll remember that according to Bruffee, "We converse; we internalize conversation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium" (551). The more I read the more apparent it becomes that incoporating a forum of discussion within composition courses is not only crucial but neccessary if the composing process is to successfully exist.
Towards the end of the selection, Berthoff reveals a passage similar to one of Bruffee's in stating that, "A writer is in dialogue with his various selves and with his audience" (650). We'll remember that according to Bruffee, "We converse; we internalize conversation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium" (551). The more I read the more apparent it becomes that incoporating a forum of discussion within composition courses is not only crucial but neccessary if the composing process is to successfully exist.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Short Essay #1: Collaborative Learning
Towards the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, there has been much thought, discussion, and study on composition theory and the way writing is taught. The reason for this age of rhetorical dissection stems from a general inability of students at the high school and introductory college level to produce written expression of mechanically and logically sound matter. During this time of scholarly inquiry, many have found that composition itself has been undergoing a change in identity from that of an act which has previously been viewed as something cognitive in process to ideas that composition is both self and socially constructed, requiring new approaches in the way that writing is instructed.
One such teaching method, debated hotly over the last thirty years, focuses on collaboration in the classroom and that writing, and learning in general, is collaborative in nature and should be taught with this in mind. I’ll admit that studying collaborative learning and writing theories, (scholarly efforts processed by analytical study of one another’s work therefore being collaborative in a sense), required from a class which is exclusively taught in a collaborative fashion, is a bit like sitting in a barber shop chair and looking past my face into the infinite bend of reflection. I think there is an end in sight, however, regarding the debate on writing and learning by consensus in that the very act of accomplishing both must be done through compromise and balance.
Kenneth Bruffee, in “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind”, states that, “We converse; we internalize conversation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium” (551). Bruffee goes onto to state that, “Writing always has its roots deep in the acquired ability to carry on the social symbolic exchange we call conversation” (551). By this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that students assigned to group work will reach consensus and the eventual completion of a task through external communication and its effect on internal thought. In “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning”, John Trimbur cites critical views of group work as being “Potentially totalitarian in practice and oppressive to individual voice and creativity” (733). While admitting that “We cannot realistically expect that collaborative learning will lead students spontaneously to transcend the limits of American culture” (734), Trimbur denies skeptical claims of group conformity stating that, “Their effort to save the individual from the group is based on an unhelpful and unnecessary polarization of the individual and society” (734). In support of Bruffee, Trimbur acknowledges that “If anything, it is through the social interaction of shared activity that individuals realize their own power to take control of their situation by collaborating with others” (735). But to contrast the same idea, Trimbur explains that the act of collaboration which enables consensus is of less importance than the process of identifying differences within the group and whether or not the group is able to work together despite dissensus. Trimbur, I think, offers a mute point here considering that a collaborative effort towards anything will inevitably produce internal strife and compromise must take place in order to reach consensus.
One critic of collaborative learning, Rafael Heller, expresses in “Questionable Categories and the Case for Collaborative Writing” that he has “Grown tired of arguing about the social construction of knowledge” and that “We can assume a certain familiarity with the idea” (305). It is this construction of knowledge, however, that is the backbone of collaborative learning according to its proponents. Rebecca Howard Moore asserts in “Collaborative Pedagogy”, “When teachers are no longer dispensing knowledge in lectures but are guiding students in the collaborative process of discovering and constructing of knowledge, students are empowered” (57). Bruffee echos Howard’s thoughts, stating that “To learn is to work collaboratively to establish and maintain knowledge among a community of knowledgeable peers” (555); and “Collaborative learning models how knowledge is generated, how it changes and grows” (556). Howard mentions the empowering of students as one of the results of collaborative learning; I think this an important concept when arguing in favor of this methodology. When given the chance to critique someone else’s work, I believe it opens up an avenue to become more conscious of one’s own thought processes and writing, leading to an assertiveness that may have been previously elusive. John Trimbur also notes the importance of empowerment: “Consensus does not necessarily violate the individual but instead can enable individuals to empower each other through social activity” (735).
Again Heller challenges the reformers: “My question isn’t whether writing instructors ought to stress collaboration as opposed to some other mode of authorship. Rather, I wonder what difference this makes” (306). Heller goes on to say, “It’s self-defeating, I think, for teachers to pursue the categorical transformation of students’ modes of writing” (315). After sifting through the assigned reading thus far this semester, I have found no evidence that any purveyor of collaborative composition is opposing other modes of pedagogy, but are instead suggesting that it become a method of learning added to preexisting curriculum. According to Bruffee, fostering aid to struggling students is largely where collaborative learning can make a difference. Yes there are tutoring and counseling programs in place, but “these programs fail because undergraduates refuse to use them” (547).
Rebecca Moore Howard puts together a detailed methodology for collaborative pedagogy, but she does not advocate the abolition of traditional hierarchical teaching. While utilizing group brainstorming and peer review, Howard only assigns one group writing project as opposed to four individual assignments. I do not believe that it is the intention of educators of composition to transform students’ modes of writing. There is, however, a consciousness that the pedagogical method of composition as taught over the last hundred years has somehow cheated students at the high school and college level. Since questions have been raised as to how knowledge is constructed and what allows the mind to put thought on paper, it seems quite necessary that professors use different teaching approaches in unison to create a balanced pedagogy.
One such teaching method, debated hotly over the last thirty years, focuses on collaboration in the classroom and that writing, and learning in general, is collaborative in nature and should be taught with this in mind. I’ll admit that studying collaborative learning and writing theories, (scholarly efforts processed by analytical study of one another’s work therefore being collaborative in a sense), required from a class which is exclusively taught in a collaborative fashion, is a bit like sitting in a barber shop chair and looking past my face into the infinite bend of reflection. I think there is an end in sight, however, regarding the debate on writing and learning by consensus in that the very act of accomplishing both must be done through compromise and balance.
Kenneth Bruffee, in “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind”, states that, “We converse; we internalize conversation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium” (551). Bruffee goes onto to state that, “Writing always has its roots deep in the acquired ability to carry on the social symbolic exchange we call conversation” (551). By this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that students assigned to group work will reach consensus and the eventual completion of a task through external communication and its effect on internal thought. In “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning”, John Trimbur cites critical views of group work as being “Potentially totalitarian in practice and oppressive to individual voice and creativity” (733). While admitting that “We cannot realistically expect that collaborative learning will lead students spontaneously to transcend the limits of American culture” (734), Trimbur denies skeptical claims of group conformity stating that, “Their effort to save the individual from the group is based on an unhelpful and unnecessary polarization of the individual and society” (734). In support of Bruffee, Trimbur acknowledges that “If anything, it is through the social interaction of shared activity that individuals realize their own power to take control of their situation by collaborating with others” (735). But to contrast the same idea, Trimbur explains that the act of collaboration which enables consensus is of less importance than the process of identifying differences within the group and whether or not the group is able to work together despite dissensus. Trimbur, I think, offers a mute point here considering that a collaborative effort towards anything will inevitably produce internal strife and compromise must take place in order to reach consensus.
One critic of collaborative learning, Rafael Heller, expresses in “Questionable Categories and the Case for Collaborative Writing” that he has “Grown tired of arguing about the social construction of knowledge” and that “We can assume a certain familiarity with the idea” (305). It is this construction of knowledge, however, that is the backbone of collaborative learning according to its proponents. Rebecca Howard Moore asserts in “Collaborative Pedagogy”, “When teachers are no longer dispensing knowledge in lectures but are guiding students in the collaborative process of discovering and constructing of knowledge, students are empowered” (57). Bruffee echos Howard’s thoughts, stating that “To learn is to work collaboratively to establish and maintain knowledge among a community of knowledgeable peers” (555); and “Collaborative learning models how knowledge is generated, how it changes and grows” (556). Howard mentions the empowering of students as one of the results of collaborative learning; I think this an important concept when arguing in favor of this methodology. When given the chance to critique someone else’s work, I believe it opens up an avenue to become more conscious of one’s own thought processes and writing, leading to an assertiveness that may have been previously elusive. John Trimbur also notes the importance of empowerment: “Consensus does not necessarily violate the individual but instead can enable individuals to empower each other through social activity” (735).
Again Heller challenges the reformers: “My question isn’t whether writing instructors ought to stress collaboration as opposed to some other mode of authorship. Rather, I wonder what difference this makes” (306). Heller goes on to say, “It’s self-defeating, I think, for teachers to pursue the categorical transformation of students’ modes of writing” (315). After sifting through the assigned reading thus far this semester, I have found no evidence that any purveyor of collaborative composition is opposing other modes of pedagogy, but are instead suggesting that it become a method of learning added to preexisting curriculum. According to Bruffee, fostering aid to struggling students is largely where collaborative learning can make a difference. Yes there are tutoring and counseling programs in place, but “these programs fail because undergraduates refuse to use them” (547).
Rebecca Moore Howard puts together a detailed methodology for collaborative pedagogy, but she does not advocate the abolition of traditional hierarchical teaching. While utilizing group brainstorming and peer review, Howard only assigns one group writing project as opposed to four individual assignments. I do not believe that it is the intention of educators of composition to transform students’ modes of writing. There is, however, a consciousness that the pedagogical method of composition as taught over the last hundred years has somehow cheated students at the high school and college level. Since questions have been raised as to how knowledge is constructed and what allows the mind to put thought on paper, it seems quite necessary that professors use different teaching approaches in unison to create a balanced pedagogy.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Peer Review
One concern I have after reading a review of my work is the initial reaction of shrugging off any advice I may get, thinking that I'm right and they're wrong. Of course when I get something back from a professor that says "change this" or "you need a coma here" I accept the editing as coming from a authoritative and kwowledgable figure. Peer editing is simply much easier to ignore.
I thought the excersise to be benificial (for me at least) because sometimes it's easier to edit other people's papers than it is your own.
I thought the excersise to be benificial (for me at least) because sometimes it's easier to edit other people's papers than it is your own.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Collaborative Learning
In "Collaborative Pedagogy" Rebecca Moore Howard provides a blue print for constructing a group writing assignment. Howard not only gives specific guidelines on choosing an assignment and collaborative methods, but also puts in place a contingency plan for the probable difficulties a collaborative writing team will face. As one who has experienced first hand the pitfalls and eventual collapse of group writing, I would say that Howard's insight in teaching such an assignment is absolutely vital. Had the students in our class been empowered through collaborative brainstorming and peer review (as Howard suggests before assigning group writing projects), I think the experience would have been much more productive and rewarding.
Interestingly, Howard examines writing as being collaborative in foundation, theorized by Charlotte Thralls. According to Thralls, active readers function as collaborative partners; the writer's sense of anticipated audience constitutes a form of collaboration; the community in which it is aimed contributes constraining (and enabling) conventions such as word choice, tone, organization; and sources that the writer has read exert their influence (55). All of this, Howard explains, is not an alternative form of composition pedagogy but an accurate reflection of the true nature of writing (55). These ideas are tough to argue against. I have read more than once in the selected essays thus far that audience is key in the development of composition in regards to content, organization, and word choice. The reader, therefore, unknowingly acts as reviewer, editor, and judge of content before anything has been written.
On the other hand one might say that all writing is self-contextualized through a traditional hierarchy of instruction. Never mind for a minute the idea of mental conversation with a collaborative audience. Once students are put into a group, a leader will emerge (usually the most knowledgeable person) who will impose their skill that the others lack yet will learn from. The professor, though encouraging group output, is still mandating the methods of the assignment while relying on the brighter students to teach the struggling ones. I guess I'm getting into the semantics of collaborative learning/writing because I feel that all learning is both collaborative and self-realized.
Interestingly, Howard examines writing as being collaborative in foundation, theorized by Charlotte Thralls. According to Thralls, active readers function as collaborative partners; the writer's sense of anticipated audience constitutes a form of collaboration; the community in which it is aimed contributes constraining (and enabling) conventions such as word choice, tone, organization; and sources that the writer has read exert their influence (55). All of this, Howard explains, is not an alternative form of composition pedagogy but an accurate reflection of the true nature of writing (55). These ideas are tough to argue against. I have read more than once in the selected essays thus far that audience is key in the development of composition in regards to content, organization, and word choice. The reader, therefore, unknowingly acts as reviewer, editor, and judge of content before anything has been written.
On the other hand one might say that all writing is self-contextualized through a traditional hierarchy of instruction. Never mind for a minute the idea of mental conversation with a collaborative audience. Once students are put into a group, a leader will emerge (usually the most knowledgeable person) who will impose their skill that the others lack yet will learn from. The professor, though encouraging group output, is still mandating the methods of the assignment while relying on the brighter students to teach the struggling ones. I guess I'm getting into the semantics of collaborative learning/writing because I feel that all learning is both collaborative and self-realized.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Elbonics
In Peter Elbow's "A Method for Teaching Writing" are two proposals: Students produce and convey thoughts, and therefore must first establish personality and truthfulness within their writing before tackling foundations such as grammar, syntax, and reason. And once, given free reign to "voice" their writing, the students shall then discuss and grade in an open forum the essay's of their peers.
I'm kind of on board with the first proposal. In one passage Elbow writes, "Maybe the quickest path to good reasoning and decent sentence writing is through learning better how to write words that reveal conviction and a person" (123) and in another, "Teachers put students into a trap by telling to do x and y and not z, when the best way to do x and y is to do z" (123). What Elbow fails to mention is why it is better to encourage believable prose before mechanics and structure. One conclusion could be that a student, knowing that they're not being graded on spelling and punctuation, may find more enjoyment in focusing on realism, therefore instilling more desire to learn. When flip-flopping the traditional sequence of composition instruction, a buffer could be created inviting otherwise disinterested students.
The second proposal, on the other hand, is a bigger pill to swallow. While class discussion is very contstructive, allowing the students to "take over" in a sense and become teachers of one another seems destructive because of their lack of discipline (mechanically speaking). Elbow's thought process here is that a student will be more excepting of another student's critisizm than that of the instructors, however unbennificial. According to Elbow, "Students seldom really believe what the teacher says about their writing" (117). I think the better word to use here would be understand.
"We are slow to realize that belief is what you call on when action is required and knowledge and evidence do not provide certainty". I really like that quote.
I'm kind of on board with the first proposal. In one passage Elbow writes, "Maybe the quickest path to good reasoning and decent sentence writing is through learning better how to write words that reveal conviction and a person" (123) and in another, "Teachers put students into a trap by telling to do x and y and not z, when the best way to do x and y is to do z" (123). What Elbow fails to mention is why it is better to encourage believable prose before mechanics and structure. One conclusion could be that a student, knowing that they're not being graded on spelling and punctuation, may find more enjoyment in focusing on realism, therefore instilling more desire to learn. When flip-flopping the traditional sequence of composition instruction, a buffer could be created inviting otherwise disinterested students.
The second proposal, on the other hand, is a bigger pill to swallow. While class discussion is very contstructive, allowing the students to "take over" in a sense and become teachers of one another seems destructive because of their lack of discipline (mechanically speaking). Elbow's thought process here is that a student will be more excepting of another student's critisizm than that of the instructors, however unbennificial. According to Elbow, "Students seldom really believe what the teacher says about their writing" (117). I think the better word to use here would be understand.
"We are slow to realize that belief is what you call on when action is required and knowledge and evidence do not provide certainty". I really like that quote.
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Fun One
Friday, February 5th, 2010
After reading the selections from Lauer and Foster, I found myself lost in world of CCCC meetings and NEH seminars; I found myself pondering the meaning of rhetoric, composition, discourse, and linguistics, and how they might be assessed through comparison group studies and meta-analysis. Suddenly I don't even know what I don't know. After breezing through a chapter of Ken Macrorie's "Telling Writing", I wanted to read another 300 pages.
Initially, Macrorie is critical of teaching styles which focus heavily on the mechanics of writing rather than the substance within, leading to dull and wordy papers. As a professor in Take 20 and Beyond stated, one must put down the pen when reading a student's work. I like this thought process. Focusing on ways to enrich creativity and description seems much more beneficial than pointing out flaws in punctuation and spelling, though the later two must not be ignored completely. According to Macrorie, it's because of this lack of genuine writing instruction that frustrated composition instructors have become the victims of their own doing.
Macrorie goes on to submit a series of free-writing samples taken from students at the college, high school, and elementary levels. By comparing the selections, Macrorie is able to show us the difference between robotic writing and truthful, expressive composition. Of course a passage written by a 3rd grader is one of the more thoughtful and imaginative pieces of writing, proving the point that simple, honest expression provides the reader with much more insight than prose that are contrived.
When writing, I've honestly never said to myself, "How would an 8 year old describe this scene?" So that's exactly what I did. After finishing the article, I began to free-write as fast as I could about a childhood experience of mine. I did this for two reasons: 1) I've only practiced this exercise once in a classroom so it seemed like it was time to give it another go, and 2) I don't recall ever writing from the perspective of a child, or at least I don't remember what I wrote as one. I surprised myself by the clarity in which I was able to capture my thoughts as a young boy and really had a good time with it.
After reading the selections from Lauer and Foster, I found myself lost in world of CCCC meetings and NEH seminars; I found myself pondering the meaning of rhetoric, composition, discourse, and linguistics, and how they might be assessed through comparison group studies and meta-analysis. Suddenly I don't even know what I don't know. After breezing through a chapter of Ken Macrorie's "Telling Writing", I wanted to read another 300 pages.
Initially, Macrorie is critical of teaching styles which focus heavily on the mechanics of writing rather than the substance within, leading to dull and wordy papers. As a professor in Take 20 and Beyond stated, one must put down the pen when reading a student's work. I like this thought process. Focusing on ways to enrich creativity and description seems much more beneficial than pointing out flaws in punctuation and spelling, though the later two must not be ignored completely. According to Macrorie, it's because of this lack of genuine writing instruction that frustrated composition instructors have become the victims of their own doing.
Macrorie goes on to submit a series of free-writing samples taken from students at the college, high school, and elementary levels. By comparing the selections, Macrorie is able to show us the difference between robotic writing and truthful, expressive composition. Of course a passage written by a 3rd grader is one of the more thoughtful and imaginative pieces of writing, proving the point that simple, honest expression provides the reader with much more insight than prose that are contrived.
When writing, I've honestly never said to myself, "How would an 8 year old describe this scene?" So that's exactly what I did. After finishing the article, I began to free-write as fast as I could about a childhood experience of mine. I did this for two reasons: 1) I've only practiced this exercise once in a classroom so it seemed like it was time to give it another go, and 2) I don't recall ever writing from the perspective of a child, or at least I don't remember what I wrote as one. I surprised myself by the clarity in which I was able to capture my thoughts as a young boy and really had a good time with it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)