In Across the Drafts, Sommers articulates a clear perspective of feedback as an opportunity for students and instructors to interact in a partnership that promotes writing development. So often, comments are construed as teachers/professors expressing minor problems in grammar and form instead of overall composition. They neglect to understand that students who receive lackluster comments miss out on chances to learn from their mistakes so that they won't repeat them.
Comments on papers in a university setting may be the only outlet for writing instruction that some students receive. As a creative writing minor/future tutor, I realized while reading this excerpt that the writing-intensive instruction I receive is rare and not all students are lucky enough to have access to one-on-one or peer-driven writing workshops. In these settings, people don't typically point out simple mistakes, but rather overall issues in composition. I learn from the critiques because they occur in an exchange, not a simple relay of problems.
Successful comments must be specific. Check marks and drawn out lines don't do the writing or the student justice. It is hard to walk away from an essay with these kinds of corrections on them and learn anything of value. Who would say, "next time, I won't use that sentence" or "next time, I won't make my sentences so long so that I don't have any run-ons" or "next time, I'll capitalize that." This kind of feedback does not carry over across disciplines of knowledge. True feedback offers a perspective of your audience. An attentive reader shares feedback that has continuity for future writing endeavors.
Quality feedback teaches meaningful lessons to budding writers. The more practice students have in writing, the more appropriate feedback they may receive. Over time, well-planned and constructive criticism paired with instruction will benefit students who are willing to accept and appreciate the commentary.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Holistic Scoring
While reading this chapter, I was invigorated to find a scoring method that involves student-driven evaluation. Instead of teachers alone deciding what makes quality writing, students are integral in laying out the requirements. While a lot of the discussion focuses on one, very specific method of rubric-creation, it is democratic and modern.
When instructors train students how to evaluate one another's writing, they will be better equipt to understand the downfalls and successes within their own writing. They are also held more responsible for their own learning overall. Holistic scoring is especially effective with writing workshops because students enjoy the control over their writing processes. The holistic approach also removes teachers from the domineering grade-giver title and moves him or her into a position of coach, leader, and resource provider.
While it wouldn't make sense to simply reinterate everything in the chapter, I'd like to emphasize some of the issues I found with this method. While it does promote classroom involvement with grading, it also seems like an easy 'opt out' choice for instructors who aren't all that interested in grading their students work. It seems lazy, in a way, to allow students to take over the teacher's obligations. As the instructor, they have the experience and background knowledge to grade appropriately.
In an ideal setting, students would be interested in administering fair, objective grades to one another. More realistically though, students would give grades based on friendships, interest in the topic, or the mood they are in that day. Teenagers are distractable, emotional, and often selfish- too much so to be all that interested in grading papers.
While the holistic approach is appropriate for giving students more in a lesson than paper-writing skills, it is based on ideal principles that an instructor may not be able to implement effectively.
When instructors train students how to evaluate one another's writing, they will be better equipt to understand the downfalls and successes within their own writing. They are also held more responsible for their own learning overall. Holistic scoring is especially effective with writing workshops because students enjoy the control over their writing processes. The holistic approach also removes teachers from the domineering grade-giver title and moves him or her into a position of coach, leader, and resource provider.
While it wouldn't make sense to simply reinterate everything in the chapter, I'd like to emphasize some of the issues I found with this method. While it does promote classroom involvement with grading, it also seems like an easy 'opt out' choice for instructors who aren't all that interested in grading their students work. It seems lazy, in a way, to allow students to take over the teacher's obligations. As the instructor, they have the experience and background knowledge to grade appropriately.
In an ideal setting, students would be interested in administering fair, objective grades to one another. More realistically though, students would give grades based on friendships, interest in the topic, or the mood they are in that day. Teenagers are distractable, emotional, and often selfish- too much so to be all that interested in grading papers.
While the holistic approach is appropriate for giving students more in a lesson than paper-writing skills, it is based on ideal principles that an instructor may not be able to implement effectively.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Well-Designed Writing Assignments
Chapter 9 emphasizes how teachers can prepare writing assignments that are comprehensive, contextual, and applicable to skill development that will benefit the student in future endeavors, writing and otherwise. It is important that teachers create lessons that are relevant to other aspects of the curriculum and to the students themselves. The chapter does discuss how too much focus on personally-driven writing can draw students away from empirical understanding.
The chapter differentiates between goals and objectives. Goals embody the "study and understanding of events and info, interpretation, argumentation, and evaluation" (279). Objectives are the end results of instruction, such as the ability "to write effective, error-free reports on events and information" (280). These are necessary aspects of education because they propel the overall aims of knowledge-building and allow for life-long lessons. Well-guided instruction also prepares students for the next level of life; i.e. middle school writing lessons will prepare you for the expectations of high school teachers and so forth until the professional level.
The downfall of well organized lesson planning comes when we recognize that many teachers do not plan in advance beyond the day before the lesson. Effective teachers know well ahead of time (even before the term begins) what they will expect of students on any given day as well as what will take place in class that day. Overall, effective lesson plans focus on several key aspects: rhetorical knowledge, critical thinking, writing as process, and finally writing conventions.
I found it compelling that William's discusses Bloom's Taxonomy from such a negative perspective. He describes how it does not work in relation to writing instruction because of the bottom-up methodology and the flawed assumptions about writing that the taxonomy promotes. He explains, "the idea of moving from the concrete to the abstract has led to the assumption that students perform best when they write about what they already know well" (282). But when students write about what they are familiar with, they tend to only be able to write about themselves. This brings us back to the need to break away from the autobiographical emphasis of writing instruction. While the personal narrative is compelling, it does not apply to the necessary writing skills relevant to college and professional level composition.
I was particularly interested in the table that describes the rhetorical difficulty of different types of writing assignments. The sequence moves from simple to more challenging, beginning with report of events/information, evaluation of events/information, fiction, and autobiography. Williams says that when writing instruction begins with young children, teachers should begin with "report of events" style composition. With experience and instruction, eventually students can move into the autobiographical format. This also emphasizes the move from the personal narrative as the simplest form of writing.
I personally have been a student asked to complete some of the sample assignments given in the chapter. Each one is driven by context and active involvement in writing. They are not open-ended, but allow the student the choice of specific topic.
The chapter is exciting because of the examples and direction within. Instead of relying on pedagogical theory, it instead works with application and process.
The chapter differentiates between goals and objectives. Goals embody the "study and understanding of events and info, interpretation, argumentation, and evaluation" (279). Objectives are the end results of instruction, such as the ability "to write effective, error-free reports on events and information" (280). These are necessary aspects of education because they propel the overall aims of knowledge-building and allow for life-long lessons. Well-guided instruction also prepares students for the next level of life; i.e. middle school writing lessons will prepare you for the expectations of high school teachers and so forth until the professional level.
The downfall of well organized lesson planning comes when we recognize that many teachers do not plan in advance beyond the day before the lesson. Effective teachers know well ahead of time (even before the term begins) what they will expect of students on any given day as well as what will take place in class that day. Overall, effective lesson plans focus on several key aspects: rhetorical knowledge, critical thinking, writing as process, and finally writing conventions.
I found it compelling that William's discusses Bloom's Taxonomy from such a negative perspective. He describes how it does not work in relation to writing instruction because of the bottom-up methodology and the flawed assumptions about writing that the taxonomy promotes. He explains, "the idea of moving from the concrete to the abstract has led to the assumption that students perform best when they write about what they already know well" (282). But when students write about what they are familiar with, they tend to only be able to write about themselves. This brings us back to the need to break away from the autobiographical emphasis of writing instruction. While the personal narrative is compelling, it does not apply to the necessary writing skills relevant to college and professional level composition.
I was particularly interested in the table that describes the rhetorical difficulty of different types of writing assignments. The sequence moves from simple to more challenging, beginning with report of events/information, evaluation of events/information, fiction, and autobiography. Williams says that when writing instruction begins with young children, teachers should begin with "report of events" style composition. With experience and instruction, eventually students can move into the autobiographical format. This also emphasizes the move from the personal narrative as the simplest form of writing.
I personally have been a student asked to complete some of the sample assignments given in the chapter. Each one is driven by context and active involvement in writing. They are not open-ended, but allow the student the choice of specific topic.
The chapter is exciting because of the examples and direction within. Instead of relying on pedagogical theory, it instead works with application and process.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Booook Clubbbb =) I am a Pencil
“‘Teachers say these students don’t’ need these so-called extras. They say what these kids need is basics. But what are the basics? How many teachers, how many people, live without music or art? None! Art is all around us, but these teachers don’t understand that. The creative arts aren’t ‘extra.’ They’re a part of life. They’re what makes life bearable” (148).
Swope offers a compelling perspective on the importance of creativity in all realms of education. Whereas some teachers focus on knowledge acquisition alone, others emphasize true learning through example, entertainment, and hands-on experience. Successful learning takes place beyond textbooks, exercises, and testing. Children are naturally inclined to open-mindedness and taking full advantage of the untainted imagination. Mr. Swope’s teaching style attests to the excitement we can derive from learning if it is motivated by passion. When he gives the children open-ended writing goals, they are able to grasp a new method of deriving understanding as well as discover which topics or prompts invigorate their interests. Swope’s own passions drove him to take risks, teach outside the box, work with various mediums and backdrops, and enlighten his students to how to activate the right brain. He fostered true creativity in his students, who would have otherwise lacked the opportunities to realize the essential yet often overlooked beauty that exists in the world surrounding them. He invites his students to an awareness of the art in the nature they rarely stop to recognize, seemingly insignificant events, and the simple pleasures they enjoy. Throughout the novel, we come to see how humans often neglect and take advantage of what we believe is mundane or extraneous. Yet according to Swope, without music, art, or color we could not appreciate life, love, and beauty. He expresses disappointment that the students aren’t given the freedoms to explore that typically pervade romanticized childhood
Identify three different exercises Swope uses and what each teaches the children about creative writing.
The first prompt Swope gives the class is an open-ended free write intended to provide the children limitless opportunities to display their written voice. In order to get to know his students, he demonstrates the excitement about writing that he hopes the students will echo. This method allows each student to express his or her individual style while breaking away from the process model of writing instruction.
Another prompt involves having students take three snapshots which represent a storyline, then exchanging photos with other groups and writing stories based upon them. Although this idea is exciting and draws in students who prefer theater and photography, Swope points out that they did not possess the background knowledge in these subjects to infer the story the pictures intended. Regardless, the students were able to add a visual component to the story.
For the poetry unit, Swope takes his students on several outings to Central Park, where they are prompted to climb trees, explore, and acknowledge nature in search of inspiration. Many of the students admit they have never climbed a tree. Swope exposes the kids to freedom in the outdoors and some idealistic aspects of childhood that get overlooked in the city. This alone generates creativity.
Are Swope’s one-on-one writing conferences beneficial to the students’ learning? Why or why not?
While I believe that individual interaction with educators creates a genuine and private connection, Swope seems to struggle with getting through to his more shy students this way. Some thrive with a little additional nudge, even those who prefer drawing comics.
Use your own creativity and interest in writing to come up with a lesson plan that aims to teach something unique and new to amateur writers.
It would be interesting to work with three dice in order to generate a story. One di could have character adjectives such as "lonely" "optimistic" "clumsy" "hyper" "intelligent" etc. Another could have character prompts such as "villan" "jungle creature" "aristocrat" "farmer" and so forth. Finally, the last di could contain a plot detail along the lines of "finds a sealed box which contains..." "must venture up the mysterious mountain in order to..." "must save the community from..."
This would allow students to each come up with a creative story that showcases their interests with a prompt that isn't too open-ended or specific. With so many story combinations, this could work as a start-of-class exercise to get the students excited for the lesson. You could change the di prompts for each class as well.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Digital Storytelling to Guide the Digital-Age Student
Greenidge, W.L., Sylvester, R. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 284-295.
Greenidge and Sylvester explore the implementation of new-age media literacies in writing instruction. The authors introduce four primary sections of digital rhetoric. Technological literacy refers to computer skills. Visual literacy refers to the encoding of images presented in any medium, digital or otherwise. Media literacy includes the abilities to "access, evaluate, and create messages in written and oral language, graphics and moving images, and audio and music" (284). Finally, information literacy involves seeking, understanding, and deconstructing knowledge discovered through various sources, particularly the Internet. Greenidge and Sylvester focus on classroom applications of these digital resources and techniques that can help struggling writers learn alternative modes of expression in writing.
The authors define digital storytelling as "a multimedia text consisting of still images complemented by a narrated soundtrack to tell a story or present a documentary; sometimes video clips are embedded between images" (284). The digital model is intended to help students find voice, confidence, and structure within their compositions that will carry over into traditional forms of literacy. One of the more relevant features of the article is the multitude of examples and resources the authors provide teachers (or future teachers) reading the article. They give a page's worth of websites that give examples of the so-called "digital story". Such examples help teachers learn about these methods that they oftentimes have never been exposed to.
The article discusses how digital storytelling may benefit students with learning disabilities or those who have only been taught how to perform on writing assessments. The writing of individuals with learning disabilities tends to be disorganized. Although they are more likely to make mistakes in their writing, they are less likely to engage in revision. They tend to give up on a given topic too soon and neglect opportunities to improve the quantity and quality of the writing. The article also argues that assessment-based instruction lends to rushed, anxiety-driven, poorly-conceived writing. Teachers have settled comfortably into the methods that aim to prepare students for testing and not to encourage students to find passion or expression in their writing. When students are driven to write for test scores, they lack the motivation necessary for quality composition. THIS is where digital storytelling comes in.
Modern students are the first generation to meet and truly be impacted by technology within the educational sphere. In 2003, 84% of students had access to a coimputer at school and 68% had access at home. By 2004, all public American schools had Internet access. Imagine how these numbers have grown since! However the issue is that most students have more knowledge about technology than parents and teachers. While this increases confidence, it removes potential for further instruction.
Despite this, teachers and professionals have worked toward developing comprehensive steps and components behind digital storytelling. Joe Lambert and Dana Atchey devised seven elements for creating effective digital stories; point of view, dramatic question (conflict), emotional content, economy, pacing, the gift of voice, and soundtrack. In cohesion with these parts, they compiled steps to take in employing them. These include voice over narration, creation of a storyboard, adding graphics, using an editing program to piece everything together, adding music, and finally "publishing", or sharing the work with the class. The article gives a list of resources and tutorials to assist in implementing this process.
In traditional writing, the audience tends to only consist of teacher and student. With digital writing, the audience becomes teacher, student, classroom, or even the world. This broader sense of audience increases student motivation and allows students to better understand who they are writing for, especially if the audience is their classmates. Understanding delivery method, story duplication, and online posting helps students create more strategic compositions.
Overall, digital storytelling can benefit struggling writers who are unable to improve within the traditional educational model. It is important to encompass all the resources available to students and teachers, even though many teachers have never been exposed to technological formats of learning. Despite their reluctance to evolve, students learn from and relate to what they know; and modern students know technology.
Greenidge and Sylvester explore the implementation of new-age media literacies in writing instruction. The authors introduce four primary sections of digital rhetoric. Technological literacy refers to computer skills. Visual literacy refers to the encoding of images presented in any medium, digital or otherwise. Media literacy includes the abilities to "access, evaluate, and create messages in written and oral language, graphics and moving images, and audio and music" (284). Finally, information literacy involves seeking, understanding, and deconstructing knowledge discovered through various sources, particularly the Internet. Greenidge and Sylvester focus on classroom applications of these digital resources and techniques that can help struggling writers learn alternative modes of expression in writing.
The authors define digital storytelling as "a multimedia text consisting of still images complemented by a narrated soundtrack to tell a story or present a documentary; sometimes video clips are embedded between images" (284). The digital model is intended to help students find voice, confidence, and structure within their compositions that will carry over into traditional forms of literacy. One of the more relevant features of the article is the multitude of examples and resources the authors provide teachers (or future teachers) reading the article. They give a page's worth of websites that give examples of the so-called "digital story". Such examples help teachers learn about these methods that they oftentimes have never been exposed to.
The article discusses how digital storytelling may benefit students with learning disabilities or those who have only been taught how to perform on writing assessments. The writing of individuals with learning disabilities tends to be disorganized. Although they are more likely to make mistakes in their writing, they are less likely to engage in revision. They tend to give up on a given topic too soon and neglect opportunities to improve the quantity and quality of the writing. The article also argues that assessment-based instruction lends to rushed, anxiety-driven, poorly-conceived writing. Teachers have settled comfortably into the methods that aim to prepare students for testing and not to encourage students to find passion or expression in their writing. When students are driven to write for test scores, they lack the motivation necessary for quality composition. THIS is where digital storytelling comes in.
Modern students are the first generation to meet and truly be impacted by technology within the educational sphere. In 2003, 84% of students had access to a coimputer at school and 68% had access at home. By 2004, all public American schools had Internet access. Imagine how these numbers have grown since! However the issue is that most students have more knowledge about technology than parents and teachers. While this increases confidence, it removes potential for further instruction.
Despite this, teachers and professionals have worked toward developing comprehensive steps and components behind digital storytelling. Joe Lambert and Dana Atchey devised seven elements for creating effective digital stories; point of view, dramatic question (conflict), emotional content, economy, pacing, the gift of voice, and soundtrack. In cohesion with these parts, they compiled steps to take in employing them. These include voice over narration, creation of a storyboard, adding graphics, using an editing program to piece everything together, adding music, and finally "publishing", or sharing the work with the class. The article gives a list of resources and tutorials to assist in implementing this process.
In traditional writing, the audience tends to only consist of teacher and student. With digital writing, the audience becomes teacher, student, classroom, or even the world. This broader sense of audience increases student motivation and allows students to better understand who they are writing for, especially if the audience is their classmates. Understanding delivery method, story duplication, and online posting helps students create more strategic compositions.
Overall, digital storytelling can benefit struggling writers who are unable to improve within the traditional educational model. It is important to encompass all the resources available to students and teachers, even though many teachers have never been exposed to technological formats of learning. Despite their reluctance to evolve, students learn from and relate to what they know; and modern students know technology.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Moving Beyond the Processed Research Essay
The most exciting thing about this essay is the acknowledgment that the standard methodologies underlying the research process are obsolete and stifling. Through this course and my creative fiction class, I am learning how to break away from lofty language and strict structure that forces me to use imaginative vocab instead of fostering fresh concepts. Davis and Shadle discuss the shift toward innovative and personal techniques that evoke an exploratory attitude in the researching student. They argue that students benefit from expressive writing that emphasizes sophisticated although creative style and perspective. Subsequently, students will develop an "inch" to write and do so successfully.
It would be easier to conceptualize this theory of learning if this was the open-minded and liberal present in the classrooms of my younger years :) as in, middle/early high school when we began work on our 1st argumentative or informational thesis-type essays. There was always MLA, AP, APA, etc. formats defining the necessary and sufficient conditions for a worthwhile bit of literary excriment composed by a student simply relaying facts. Even though I learned how to acquire new knowledge from research as well as how to implement the rules of English grammar, the 5 paragraph format with that "Instant" style thesis clouds my ability to produce creative language. Alternative research essays are post-process, modern, and practically absent from the current classroom (unless youre lucky enough to find yourself in a wrtc or creative writing class).
The alternative essay concepts include the research argument, the personal research paper, the research essay, and the multi-genre/media/disciplinary/cultural research paper. Even though these are all interesting in themselves and I took a lot of notes on each, I refuse to plainly regurgitate what I gained from the article. We all read the article :) It is important to note that each holds benefits for increased understanding for both author and audience as well as various levels of personal or opinionated engagement. Modern students are making a most critical move toward the multi-genre arena of research. The most involving presentations of info grasp a variety of your senses and interests. By using many modes of media, sources, mediums, etc., the multi-genre researcher is able to combine ideas from a deep pool of knowledge while maintaining creativity and a unique perspective.
It seems that the multi-genre project or essay pervades the modern American classroom. What I am most curious about, in the present "infoculture", is any writing not "multiwriting"?
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Review & Critique of Post-Process Pedagogy
With so many movements surrounding literature, education, and the process of writing that emerge given historical and social context, each appears more abstract and revolutionary than the last. The "post-process" theory of teaching writing emphasizes discarding the step-by-step methods of writing in exchange for the development of dialogue and expression between members of a discourse community. Proponents of this belief argue that teaching writing as a quantifiable activity removes the contextual and content oriented value of a given piece of writing. It neglects the understanding that writing is an activity unique to the writer that depends upon the audience as well as the purpose behind it.
Overall composition is a process that involves more than just prewriting, writing, and revision as a means to an end. Plural processes exist within writing that make it malleable and variant to each author. Breuch describes the "post-process" movement as one not necessarily intended to generate a new form of pedagogy, but rather as a response to outdated methods that do not fully address modern approaches to education. While it may not be the availability of a reliable process that is the problem, depending on that process as a concrete set of steps required to produce a "good-quality" example of writing leads to the dissolve of creativity in the writing process.
Some post-process theorists suggest that it is impossible to teach a student how to write. According to Kent, "writing and reading- conceived broadly as processes or bodies of knowledge- cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach." Teachers may provide students with the rules regarding grammar, sentence structure, and essary cohesion. They cannot, however, ensure that an understanding of this knowledge will allow students to become effectively communicating individuals. This assertion is rather abstract, considering if teachers were to abandon the study and practice of writing in their classrooms, the ability of students to learn to communicate effectively would disappear. We MUST teach writing because it is a skill that we need but are not born with. It defines our status as humans. It defines our history and the basis of our ever-developing knowledge vault where we secure our intellectual outputs.
The most difficult understanding behind post-process theory is that even those who adhere to it express a belief that it does not provide any practical applications to back it up. So if we were to agree that writing is not necessarily a system, it is still a PROCESS. Regardless of whether a singular process exists that defines writing on a holistic level, it is still a group of steps set forth by the writer to achieve an end. In order to define writing that is unique to each of us, we must take into account that writing is a means to communication, even when the audience is the author. Therefore, post-process advocates insist that learning to write must be viewed as an interaction, a dialogue built upon learning, between student and teacher. Post-process theorists suggest that this benefits writing, but does not adequately address the issues of power within the classroom. This begs the question, who should have power in this setting? Should teachers relay information and be trusted as experienced experts? Should students feel comfortable enough in the classroom to offer progressive perspectives of process that allow them to develop their own methods? What is most effective? This is where we realize that even if we were to attempt to implement post-process pedagogies, we would be unable to predict the impacts upon the learning experience.
The most significant bit of theory I derived from this hefty and at times redundant/abstract essay is that writing is most effective when it exists in a two-way, communicative setting that fosters conversation and expression without adhering to concrete curriculum. Irene Ward describes "functional dialogism" as a process that emphasizes "internal dialogue between a self an an internalized audience, dialogue between teacher and student, dialogue between students and other larger social institutions, dialogues among students about the formal matters of the composition of the ideas or subject of the discourse, and composing using dialogic forms in order to understand an issue or group of issues from various points of view and gain insight into one's relationship to those ideas and into multiple perspectives represented by many voices that have already entered into public dialogue" (126). While one-on-one interactions between students and teachers are not practical in the classroom, the combination of these dialogues enlightens us to a learning concept that allows for multiple levels of understanding. Instead of a lecture setting which applies "approved" bits of knowledge, this post-process method gives students the opportunity to express their perspectives and apply them to one another's writing. I have seen this implemented in our WRTC 340 class as well as in classes that support interteaching, a method in which students discuss the reading in pairs or groups to gain further insight. This set of techniques is also beneficial to the writing-center tutoring equation, one I will be entering in the fall.
As I read this article, I am frustrated to find no discussion of how exactly one can become an efficient writer without being taught how to do so. And what is it that qualifies an individual to achieve the label of a "good writer"? Proficiency in writing comes from practice. Practice allows us to make errors that we, given experience, learn how to avoid. How do we recognize a linguistic mistake? Through the knowledge we acquired when learning the standards of quality writing. Yes, teachers must share with students basic grammatical understanding, but learning how to write well evolves from education. The tidbits of information that I actually encoded across over 15 years of education in the English language are unique to me. We are not all taught the same way nor are we all absorbing the same lessons. Post-process theory, just like all those that arrived before it, will not spew forth a generation of adequate writers. At least in elementary through high school education, we have become comfortable with the process approach. It is standardized and teaches students how to prepare an essay following the grammar lessons that came before. It is structured. It is easy to grade. In many circles, it is considered effective. In breaking away from a nationally-condoned expectation, we leave vulnerable a new generation of language producers. While this is frightening, it is a transitional process that will eventually allow new methods to blossom in the future given innovative techniques.
Post-process theorists also neglect the understanding that process-theory is not set in stone. Many professors express that the writing process subjective. Even though they believe in the inherent value of steps, they do not express some dictatorship of process where deviation in the formula is forbidden. How can teachers stand by the individual steps in writing without forcing students to adhere to a particular method that generates standard-quality writing?
It is worthwhile to note the value in the three basic assumptions of the post-process approach to writing.
First, writing is public. It exists as a product of communication between author and audience. From this arises triangulation, or the "connection between language users and the world... the source of objectivity is intersubjectivity: the triangle consists of two people and the world" (134). The most basic component of writing is dialogue, it is a discussion or argument surrounding a topic presented from one mind to another.
Second, writing is interpretive. It is not stable across peoples, contexts, or belief systems because it is subjective in content. How we derive meaning from text arises from individual experiences and education. Therefore, process-theory erases individual differences and attempts to approach writing as an overall set of steps which are applicable despite obvious lack of uniformity across peoples. While each of us may learn to interpret differently, we cannot remove past understandings in favor of a uniform process.
Finally, writing is situation. It is not standard across situations. Rather, it must correspond to naturally varying contexts. In following a standardized perspective of learning to write, we eliminate context variation and water-down writing to suit the broad-spectrum. "Situatedness, for postmodern scholars, regers to the ability to respond to specific situations rather than rely on foundational principles or rules" (138). In tying this essay with our understanding of rhetoric as a body of knowledge, I appreciate the definition given in this section. "Rhetoric is the study of personal, social, and historical elements in human discourse- how to recognize them, interpret them, and act on them, in terms both of situational context and of verbal style" (139). Writing must change given the situation in which it is applied.
In the conclusion of the essay, Breuch discusses the implications of post-process theory in regards to a tutorial interaction between students. I found this interesting given my job position next semester. Although the author finds it difficult to establish proper settings and methods to apply to post-process thory, it is a relief to know that at least one exists that is not an abstraction. Tutoring revolves around conversation and one-on-one interaction. The writing center is an arena in which a student may approach his or her writing in an evaluative, open-ended, and ambitious context that ties together the public, interpretive, and situated aspects of the theory at hand. This example makes me wonder whether education would be a more effective center if one-on-one instruction could be provided to students across the board. Eliminate the classroom and allow each student an individual tutor to guide them through the knowledge that will prepare them for a harmonious and intellectually-driven future.
Overall composition is a process that involves more than just prewriting, writing, and revision as a means to an end. Plural processes exist within writing that make it malleable and variant to each author. Breuch describes the "post-process" movement as one not necessarily intended to generate a new form of pedagogy, but rather as a response to outdated methods that do not fully address modern approaches to education. While it may not be the availability of a reliable process that is the problem, depending on that process as a concrete set of steps required to produce a "good-quality" example of writing leads to the dissolve of creativity in the writing process.
Some post-process theorists suggest that it is impossible to teach a student how to write. According to Kent, "writing and reading- conceived broadly as processes or bodies of knowledge- cannot be taught, for nothing exists to teach." Teachers may provide students with the rules regarding grammar, sentence structure, and essary cohesion. They cannot, however, ensure that an understanding of this knowledge will allow students to become effectively communicating individuals. This assertion is rather abstract, considering if teachers were to abandon the study and practice of writing in their classrooms, the ability of students to learn to communicate effectively would disappear. We MUST teach writing because it is a skill that we need but are not born with. It defines our status as humans. It defines our history and the basis of our ever-developing knowledge vault where we secure our intellectual outputs.
The most difficult understanding behind post-process theory is that even those who adhere to it express a belief that it does not provide any practical applications to back it up. So if we were to agree that writing is not necessarily a system, it is still a PROCESS. Regardless of whether a singular process exists that defines writing on a holistic level, it is still a group of steps set forth by the writer to achieve an end. In order to define writing that is unique to each of us, we must take into account that writing is a means to communication, even when the audience is the author. Therefore, post-process advocates insist that learning to write must be viewed as an interaction, a dialogue built upon learning, between student and teacher. Post-process theorists suggest that this benefits writing, but does not adequately address the issues of power within the classroom. This begs the question, who should have power in this setting? Should teachers relay information and be trusted as experienced experts? Should students feel comfortable enough in the classroom to offer progressive perspectives of process that allow them to develop their own methods? What is most effective? This is where we realize that even if we were to attempt to implement post-process pedagogies, we would be unable to predict the impacts upon the learning experience.
The most significant bit of theory I derived from this hefty and at times redundant/abstract essay is that writing is most effective when it exists in a two-way, communicative setting that fosters conversation and expression without adhering to concrete curriculum. Irene Ward describes "functional dialogism" as a process that emphasizes "internal dialogue between a self an an internalized audience, dialogue between teacher and student, dialogue between students and other larger social institutions, dialogues among students about the formal matters of the composition of the ideas or subject of the discourse, and composing using dialogic forms in order to understand an issue or group of issues from various points of view and gain insight into one's relationship to those ideas and into multiple perspectives represented by many voices that have already entered into public dialogue" (126). While one-on-one interactions between students and teachers are not practical in the classroom, the combination of these dialogues enlightens us to a learning concept that allows for multiple levels of understanding. Instead of a lecture setting which applies "approved" bits of knowledge, this post-process method gives students the opportunity to express their perspectives and apply them to one another's writing. I have seen this implemented in our WRTC 340 class as well as in classes that support interteaching, a method in which students discuss the reading in pairs or groups to gain further insight. This set of techniques is also beneficial to the writing-center tutoring equation, one I will be entering in the fall.
As I read this article, I am frustrated to find no discussion of how exactly one can become an efficient writer without being taught how to do so. And what is it that qualifies an individual to achieve the label of a "good writer"? Proficiency in writing comes from practice. Practice allows us to make errors that we, given experience, learn how to avoid. How do we recognize a linguistic mistake? Through the knowledge we acquired when learning the standards of quality writing. Yes, teachers must share with students basic grammatical understanding, but learning how to write well evolves from education. The tidbits of information that I actually encoded across over 15 years of education in the English language are unique to me. We are not all taught the same way nor are we all absorbing the same lessons. Post-process theory, just like all those that arrived before it, will not spew forth a generation of adequate writers. At least in elementary through high school education, we have become comfortable with the process approach. It is standardized and teaches students how to prepare an essay following the grammar lessons that came before. It is structured. It is easy to grade. In many circles, it is considered effective. In breaking away from a nationally-condoned expectation, we leave vulnerable a new generation of language producers. While this is frightening, it is a transitional process that will eventually allow new methods to blossom in the future given innovative techniques.
Post-process theorists also neglect the understanding that process-theory is not set in stone. Many professors express that the writing process subjective. Even though they believe in the inherent value of steps, they do not express some dictatorship of process where deviation in the formula is forbidden. How can teachers stand by the individual steps in writing without forcing students to adhere to a particular method that generates standard-quality writing?
It is worthwhile to note the value in the three basic assumptions of the post-process approach to writing.
First, writing is public. It exists as a product of communication between author and audience. From this arises triangulation, or the "connection between language users and the world... the source of objectivity is intersubjectivity: the triangle consists of two people and the world" (134). The most basic component of writing is dialogue, it is a discussion or argument surrounding a topic presented from one mind to another.
Second, writing is interpretive. It is not stable across peoples, contexts, or belief systems because it is subjective in content. How we derive meaning from text arises from individual experiences and education. Therefore, process-theory erases individual differences and attempts to approach writing as an overall set of steps which are applicable despite obvious lack of uniformity across peoples. While each of us may learn to interpret differently, we cannot remove past understandings in favor of a uniform process.
Finally, writing is situation. It is not standard across situations. Rather, it must correspond to naturally varying contexts. In following a standardized perspective of learning to write, we eliminate context variation and water-down writing to suit the broad-spectrum. "Situatedness, for postmodern scholars, regers to the ability to respond to specific situations rather than rely on foundational principles or rules" (138). In tying this essay with our understanding of rhetoric as a body of knowledge, I appreciate the definition given in this section. "Rhetoric is the study of personal, social, and historical elements in human discourse- how to recognize them, interpret them, and act on them, in terms both of situational context and of verbal style" (139). Writing must change given the situation in which it is applied.
In the conclusion of the essay, Breuch discusses the implications of post-process theory in regards to a tutorial interaction between students. I found this interesting given my job position next semester. Although the author finds it difficult to establish proper settings and methods to apply to post-process thory, it is a relief to know that at least one exists that is not an abstraction. Tutoring revolves around conversation and one-on-one interaction. The writing center is an arena in which a student may approach his or her writing in an evaluative, open-ended, and ambitious context that ties together the public, interpretive, and situated aspects of the theory at hand. This example makes me wonder whether education would be a more effective center if one-on-one instruction could be provided to students across the board. Eliminate the classroom and allow each student an individual tutor to guide them through the knowledge that will prepare them for a harmonious and intellectually-driven future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)