Dr. Burns for almost two hours gave us his academic past up until now - his success and his disappointments - when problem solving didn't work well. But that did not hold him back from reaching many goals.
His relaxed and humorous style of discourse was disarming just as he said of Mr. Booth, an important mentor in his life. I appreciated the time time he took to explain to us the nuts and bolts of what started long ago in Greece : The first subjects of study or the well rounded education at that time.
He wove bits if his autobiography through out as he also explained with examples what is Rhetoric: the what, when, why, and who.
As he gave us information that he wished he had had many years ago, he also defined some terms that confuse me less now: Topoi, heuristic, hermeneutics
Some things that I will take away from his inspiring talk are:
Find the common ground first before you find the point of disagreement.
Rhetoric has this effect on us- we try to persuade even as we are unsure, and we build the best truth we have.
Try to solve the problems even if we don't have all the answers.
And finally:
One should write if she is to be a teacher of writing!
Thank you Dr. Burns
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Feminist research methodologies. Who has the right way?
From the '70's forward feminists and a few men have discoursed and sometimes argued about the correct methodologies to recover or revise the past in order to rediscover women who rightly should be recognized as rhetorics along side the men who have been noted as the rhetorics of history.
I am not clear yet what the different methods are to do research but I shall make a prediction. two familiar names are Patricia Bizzell and Andrea Lunsford among dozens of others who are leaders in this journey to discover the truth about female leaders in rhetoric of their time. In doping research says Bizzell is to do research on lives and theories and show some of their work, must show evidence and analysis to seek proof of objective Truth. Objective is the key word.
In doing this recovery work some feminist researchers have been admittedly subjective about their work as they are emotionally involved. Surprisingly Bizzell says in this case researchers recovering silent voices of women writers who have not been placed in history must approach differently ; that is they must have emotional involvement; they cannot be neutral in this case.
Still othes tried to play down the subjectivity and emotionin order to elevate and justify their argument. In some cases women were preachers , used language publicly and in other situations they were silenced, unrecognized along with the men orators of their time.
There are many unsolved debates about how this recovery should happen. For example should there be a separate female history or should women who were discovered be incorporated along with the men already know as rhetorics of the time. Some women were silenced by the use of penname and some women were silenced by playing the good (quiet) girl, high achieving but lacking an authoritative voice.
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell discovered and wrote about female rhetors from the 19th century who wrote about grievances and trying to justify their right to speak in public. With her discovery of audience awareness and persuasion Campbell could use these voices to instruct contemporary feminist theory.
As I spoke of, when discussing Lunsford "history of rhetoric class"including both genders, feminist researchers this time Bizzell and Herzbergs wrote an anthology including historic female speakers along side and in the same context as themales. from Aspasia to Christine de Pazan rather then creating one for women only.
No we already know that everything is an argument so the feminist rhetors had their version of Elbow and Bartholomae. If the men differ why should not the women have a pubic conflict? This famous debate was between Biesecker and Campbell from 1992-1993. Biesecker critiques feminist research that mimics the traditional mainstream ( male dominated). In doing so she was attacking Cambell a representative of feminists who Bieseckers accuse of reinforcing hierarchies and an causing the oppressed to be silenced. Campbell answered saying it was Biesecker approach that silenced women, by stating that all women have equal rhetorical ability.Bieker states that the problem is the canon needs to be modified to be more feminist.
Then Lunsford helped out the cause by creating a huge anthology of feminist writers that adhere to "forms, strategies and goals." They had different methologies but this diversity made it stronger.Lunsford also co- authored an article called "Border Crossings.: Intersection of Rhetoric and Feminism." Cheryl Glenn also wrote a single author book to study female rhetoric from the classical period. Her methodology was remapping rhetorical history by combining historiograpahy ( here ' s where I am lost) and recovery.
One of my questions is , If women were non citizens it would be difficult for their voice to be heard publicly but worse women were denied education. I suppose women could have been orators , preachers but there could not have been compositionists.
By 1999 the voices of African American and Native American voices were heard. the article tells of of one more debate between feminists. Xin Liu Gale argues that feminists have moved too far away from mainstream academics and cannot be trusted to be scholarly or truthful. The point she did not get was that postmodern historiography does not attempt to do away with notion of truth but attempts to think of truth differently.
The voice of reason : Bizzell says that gale is uncomfortable with the personal involvement of much feministic research and remember, Bizzell says this subjective approach is necessary. The writing of feminists grew after 2002-3 , and the rhetorical canon became open to debate.
Bizzell states that the canon should be "updated" and of course that was the beginning of another argument. Chicano feminists finally joined the discourse. By now in the 21st century the feminist rhetoric is considered mainsteam and is guided by paradigms of recovery and revision, flexible and individual for each researcher.
I am not clear yet what the different methods are to do research but I shall make a prediction. two familiar names are Patricia Bizzell and Andrea Lunsford among dozens of others who are leaders in this journey to discover the truth about female leaders in rhetoric of their time. In doping research says Bizzell is to do research on lives and theories and show some of their work, must show evidence and analysis to seek proof of objective Truth. Objective is the key word.
In doing this recovery work some feminist researchers have been admittedly subjective about their work as they are emotionally involved. Surprisingly Bizzell says in this case researchers recovering silent voices of women writers who have not been placed in history must approach differently ; that is they must have emotional involvement; they cannot be neutral in this case.
Still othes tried to play down the subjectivity and emotionin order to elevate and justify their argument. In some cases women were preachers , used language publicly and in other situations they were silenced, unrecognized along with the men orators of their time.
There are many unsolved debates about how this recovery should happen. For example should there be a separate female history or should women who were discovered be incorporated along with the men already know as rhetorics of the time. Some women were silenced by the use of penname and some women were silenced by playing the good (quiet) girl, high achieving but lacking an authoritative voice.
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell discovered and wrote about female rhetors from the 19th century who wrote about grievances and trying to justify their right to speak in public. With her discovery of audience awareness and persuasion Campbell could use these voices to instruct contemporary feminist theory.
As I spoke of, when discussing Lunsford "history of rhetoric class"including both genders, feminist researchers this time Bizzell and Herzbergs wrote an anthology including historic female speakers along side and in the same context as themales. from Aspasia to Christine de Pazan rather then creating one for women only.
No we already know that everything is an argument so the feminist rhetors had their version of Elbow and Bartholomae. If the men differ why should not the women have a pubic conflict? This famous debate was between Biesecker and Campbell from 1992-1993. Biesecker critiques feminist research that mimics the traditional mainstream ( male dominated). In doing so she was attacking Cambell a representative of feminists who Bieseckers accuse of reinforcing hierarchies and an causing the oppressed to be silenced. Campbell answered saying it was Biesecker approach that silenced women, by stating that all women have equal rhetorical ability.Bieker states that the problem is the canon needs to be modified to be more feminist.
Then Lunsford helped out the cause by creating a huge anthology of feminist writers that adhere to "forms, strategies and goals." They had different methologies but this diversity made it stronger.Lunsford also co- authored an article called "Border Crossings.: Intersection of Rhetoric and Feminism." Cheryl Glenn also wrote a single author book to study female rhetoric from the classical period. Her methodology was remapping rhetorical history by combining historiograpahy ( here ' s where I am lost) and recovery.
One of my questions is , If women were non citizens it would be difficult for their voice to be heard publicly but worse women were denied education. I suppose women could have been orators , preachers but there could not have been compositionists.
By 1999 the voices of African American and Native American voices were heard. the article tells of of one more debate between feminists. Xin Liu Gale argues that feminists have moved too far away from mainstream academics and cannot be trusted to be scholarly or truthful. The point she did not get was that postmodern historiography does not attempt to do away with notion of truth but attempts to think of truth differently.
The voice of reason : Bizzell says that gale is uncomfortable with the personal involvement of much feministic research and remember, Bizzell says this subjective approach is necessary. The writing of feminists grew after 2002-3 , and the rhetorical canon became open to debate.
Bizzell states that the canon should be "updated" and of course that was the beginning of another argument. Chicano feminists finally joined the discourse. By now in the 21st century the feminist rhetoric is considered mainsteam and is guided by paradigms of recovery and revision, flexible and individual for each researcher.
Who is closest to what I think is my pedagogy?
Although I very much admire and agree with Andrea Lunsford on her call for collaboration , and the importance of argument, I feel that I am closer to Graff and Bizzell in my pedagogy, in what we have learned about them so far. I would like to compare Bizzell with Graff soon, but for the sake of time and what I don't know, I will focus on Bizzell in this comment.
I teach L2 students, most of whom can speak English as well as peers but fall behind in reading and writing and as Bizzell points out - thinking. I am aware of the description of disenfranchised students who are multicultural and have a different community than many at school. I do not have trouble identifying what she describes, but I am always looking for better ways to teach them, to meet their unique needs and background so they can reach their potential and have access to the dominant culture - as needed. Therefore I am very interested in what Bizzell has to say as far as solutions!
Shaynee's handout was very helpful on one side and explained well what Bizzell believes and her theory of composition as well as pedagogy. She gave clear examples of where Bizzell fits in the composition theory dialogue and also the context of what she deems most important in teaching. Shaynee's points made under additive and holistic, parallels the description of Bizzell in Compbiblio thus making her methods and goals with student even more comprehensible.
However, I had not seen before the diagram on the other side of handout explaining Inner and outer directed model of language and thought development. It is slightly abstract and therefore I would need to read more and find more examples of these theories before I can fully process this information.
Bizzell believes in teaching grammar as well as values. She insists on giving her students models of good writing to help them put ideas into words, while valuing cultures and beliefs , which ultimately will be part of their writing. Teachers who recognize the importance of students communities and cultures will have students who can become more engaged in meaningful composition.
Besides writing or academic discourse, Bizzell has other goals for her students. She wants her students to develop "critical consciousness, a critical awareness of their own intellectual processes." This is important for students to become learners in the broad sense. She states that academic discourse is not "the best or only path "to this goal. She "examines the practice of teaching academic discourse as a construct" but also to see truth.
It is clear that she is as she sees herself, " a teacher-scholar." She seeks to promote social justice not only by writing but also by educating the disenfranchised.
I teach L2 students, most of whom can speak English as well as peers but fall behind in reading and writing and as Bizzell points out - thinking. I am aware of the description of disenfranchised students who are multicultural and have a different community than many at school. I do not have trouble identifying what she describes, but I am always looking for better ways to teach them, to meet their unique needs and background so they can reach their potential and have access to the dominant culture - as needed. Therefore I am very interested in what Bizzell has to say as far as solutions!
Shaynee's handout was very helpful on one side and explained well what Bizzell believes and her theory of composition as well as pedagogy. She gave clear examples of where Bizzell fits in the composition theory dialogue and also the context of what she deems most important in teaching. Shaynee's points made under additive and holistic, parallels the description of Bizzell in Compbiblio thus making her methods and goals with student even more comprehensible.
However, I had not seen before the diagram on the other side of handout explaining Inner and outer directed model of language and thought development. It is slightly abstract and therefore I would need to read more and find more examples of these theories before I can fully process this information.
Bizzell believes in teaching grammar as well as values. She insists on giving her students models of good writing to help them put ideas into words, while valuing cultures and beliefs , which ultimately will be part of their writing. Teachers who recognize the importance of students communities and cultures will have students who can become more engaged in meaningful composition.
Besides writing or academic discourse, Bizzell has other goals for her students. She wants her students to develop "critical consciousness, a critical awareness of their own intellectual processes." This is important for students to become learners in the broad sense. She states that academic discourse is not "the best or only path "to this goal. She "examines the practice of teaching academic discourse as a construct" but also to see truth.
It is clear that she is as she sees herself, " a teacher-scholar." She seeks to promote social justice not only by writing but also by educating the disenfranchised.
Everyone needs a center for their pedagogy!
Scott Lee gave us a thorough list of what Gerald Graff's most important issues are in teaching composition. His two handouts, detailed with Graff's main issues, purposes in his writing, and where he fits in the continuum of a dozen other composition leaders, were very helpful for his classmates.
Graff is known for his chant,"teach ( students) to the conflicts." He insists that The Argument should be the center of of all pedagogy. As I consider this statement , I am thinking that I agree that argumentation or debate for all ages of students is an excellent method of building critical thinking skills, writing with a definite purpose, learning how to use academic language to make one's argument clear and succinct as Bartholomae would demand. Graff notes that these arguments must not be in a vacuum, but I would think arguing for authentic issues would not be difficult. As Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz book states,"Everything's an argument."
Certainly students are engaged when directed to participate in a debate. I have seen this to be very effective in Middle school and I have used it this even in elementary. In not arguing in a vacuum, I am guessing that debating the opinions of real people in the news or from history would be connecting with the real world and also content areas. Students could argue their hypothesis in science or the causes of a specific war, or the ethics of war. However, to get students started I wonder if especially the younger or the L2 students might start with arguments pertaining to school, one of their communities. Should students be allowed to bring cel phones to school? What about a dress code? Should the driving age be lowered? I agree with Bartholomae and Graff that students as part of learning academica should know well and be able to argue both sides. In fact I have done this at a wporkshop with my adult peers. We had to debate both of sides of is CSAP a good idea!
Graff differs from Bartholomae in his techniques of using templates to teach the academic language. Let's face it the sentence frames, or templates in his book will help adults ( me!) as much as our younger students. Sentence templates have been used all the way down to first grade to help struggling readers and writers make an accurate sentence. This is also very effective for L2 students at any age.
I like Graff's tendency to want students to learn to speaqk and write academic language and join the critical thinking through debate or argument, but I also praise his work toward scaffolding these skills for those who need it. As far as placing argument in the center of our pedagogy.. everyone needs a center for their pedagogy and I am feeling persuaded by Graff's arguments that perhaps argument be. In other words we should teach the conflicts; those that are authentic and, at least in the beginning for younger students, part of thier communities.
I would add that Lunsford agree's with Graff, but she would also add the element of collaboration.
Graff is known for his chant,"teach ( students) to the conflicts." He insists that The Argument should be the center of of all pedagogy. As I consider this statement , I am thinking that I agree that argumentation or debate for all ages of students is an excellent method of building critical thinking skills, writing with a definite purpose, learning how to use academic language to make one's argument clear and succinct as Bartholomae would demand. Graff notes that these arguments must not be in a vacuum, but I would think arguing for authentic issues would not be difficult. As Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz book states,"Everything's an argument."
Certainly students are engaged when directed to participate in a debate. I have seen this to be very effective in Middle school and I have used it this even in elementary. In not arguing in a vacuum, I am guessing that debating the opinions of real people in the news or from history would be connecting with the real world and also content areas. Students could argue their hypothesis in science or the causes of a specific war, or the ethics of war. However, to get students started I wonder if especially the younger or the L2 students might start with arguments pertaining to school, one of their communities. Should students be allowed to bring cel phones to school? What about a dress code? Should the driving age be lowered? I agree with Bartholomae and Graff that students as part of learning academica should know well and be able to argue both sides. In fact I have done this at a wporkshop with my adult peers. We had to debate both of sides of is CSAP a good idea!
Graff differs from Bartholomae in his techniques of using templates to teach the academic language. Let's face it the sentence frames, or templates in his book will help adults ( me!) as much as our younger students. Sentence templates have been used all the way down to first grade to help struggling readers and writers make an accurate sentence. This is also very effective for L2 students at any age.
I like Graff's tendency to want students to learn to speaqk and write academic language and join the critical thinking through debate or argument, but I also praise his work toward scaffolding these skills for those who need it. As far as placing argument in the center of our pedagogy.. everyone needs a center for their pedagogy and I am feeling persuaded by Graff's arguments that perhaps argument be. In other words we should teach the conflicts; those that are authentic and, at least in the beginning for younger students, part of thier communities.
I would add that Lunsford agree's with Graff, but she would also add the element of collaboration.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Emily and Bartholomae
Emily's presentation on Bartholomae was organized in a way that made both the differences and the similarities more clear between Elbow and Bartholomae. Creatively she also took the wind out of several myths that she encountered about Bartholomae.
She points out that Bartholomae, like Elbow is also interested in teaching students to be better writers. Different from Elbow he sees himself as teacher in control. Students cannot teach themselves and if they did they would just reproduce "basic writers." Students must be taught what they came to higher education without. He will teach students to develop the second language of academia by dense reading and difficult critical thinking.
Elbow encourages students to write and to learn about and trust themselves. Bartholomae teaches students to learn to write and encourages skepticism. As Emily put it, Elbow writes first in the process and Bartholomae writes last after considering the critical questions and rhetoric. His students must explore through research. He wants his students' writing not to be subjective but scholarly - worthy of publication in the academic community.
Both have like minded peers. It is good that there are both kinds of teaching so that one could follow what is best for him or her. Lundsford like Bartholomae wants to see the whole argument worked out in her mind before she begins to write. While that works and is best for her, her long time writing partner Lisa Ede writes in pieces and revising as she goes, and after many drafts learning what she wants to say.
As someone else said, if I am beginning to develop that second language of higher academica, I need that dense reading and researching to explore critical questions. There is time later to switch over to Elbows' write-to-know oneself. Emily stated that both believe voice is important. But while Elbow believes that voice is a higher priority and must be discovered early as a writer, Bartholomae suggests that humans are socially constructed and so we must determine our place in the construct and then we will be able to find our voice with or against the dominant culture.
Thanks Emily for clarifying some of the mystery between these two important composition leaders.
She points out that Bartholomae, like Elbow is also interested in teaching students to be better writers. Different from Elbow he sees himself as teacher in control. Students cannot teach themselves and if they did they would just reproduce "basic writers." Students must be taught what they came to higher education without. He will teach students to develop the second language of academia by dense reading and difficult critical thinking.
Elbow encourages students to write and to learn about and trust themselves. Bartholomae teaches students to learn to write and encourages skepticism. As Emily put it, Elbow writes first in the process and Bartholomae writes last after considering the critical questions and rhetoric. His students must explore through research. He wants his students' writing not to be subjective but scholarly - worthy of publication in the academic community.
Both have like minded peers. It is good that there are both kinds of teaching so that one could follow what is best for him or her. Lundsford like Bartholomae wants to see the whole argument worked out in her mind before she begins to write. While that works and is best for her, her long time writing partner Lisa Ede writes in pieces and revising as she goes, and after many drafts learning what she wants to say.
As someone else said, if I am beginning to develop that second language of higher academica, I need that dense reading and researching to explore critical questions. There is time later to switch over to Elbows' write-to-know oneself. Emily stated that both believe voice is important. But while Elbow believes that voice is a higher priority and must be discovered early as a writer, Bartholomae suggests that humans are socially constructed and so we must determine our place in the construct and then we will be able to find our voice with or against the dominant culture.
Thanks Emily for clarifying some of the mystery between these two important composition leaders.
"Peer Revison... for who?"
Unlike the Article, "Recopying for Revision" I feel strongly about Peer Revision. Like Rhonda I did not experience peer revision until I was an adult going to teacher's conferences and participating in those 'fun' activities. At the workshops it was not a true community but only a place to practice new ideas. It was only after Elbow and Donald Murray and Donald Graves and apparently Kenneth Brufee, and others came along proposing and teaching the process approach to writing.
Invalid or Invaluable? It depends. I have seen it work well in my classroom, but it true- it's not easy.
I was very interested in the research of Brammer and Rees, but not surprised with their results. The students mostly participated in peer review and feedback because the teacher required it and students valued the process in relation to how much the teachers expected them to do this and also to the extent that they were taught how to do this. Also, students who were taught and given more models were more confident in this strategy of peer review.
The students in this research are in a middle school. They don't come to school ( as Bizzell pointed out) with many ideas outside of their own community and culture. So it depends on what they are writing about . If they are allowed to write about things they know and care about, then they will be more engaged in writing and will value what they write. With more confidence, students will be more willing to learn about peer review as a way to develop their ideas and writing.
The article mentioned that students valued the process more in relation to how much training they had in peer review. Some teachers gave a list of questions to ask or look for. Definitely with middle school students,or younger, students will need very explicit instruction to build confidence.
Likewise, students should be steered away from any grammar or punctuation feedback before the content is first responded to. In the research they found that grammar feedback was often the majority what students gave and received. That can be helpful and needed IF it is after receiving feedback on the ideas and content and only if it is a student who is strong in grammar. Otherwise the students would be right who said it was a waste of time.
For peer review to be helpful, Teachers should give lots of scaffolding, and students strengths should be recognized. Some students who can't write a sentence well or or know where to put a comma may have great creative ideas. Students who can't spell may have a terrific oral vocabulary and be able to help with word choice.
Peer review in elementary can be helpful for both the giver and receiver but it would look differently than middle school. Like wise in graduate school peer revision should be easier but the principles are the same. Another point is that students can give feedback in other areas besides writing. There should be peer review( collaboration) across the contents. Often a student can help a peer work out a math problem in a different way, or one could give feedback in writing a lab report or figuring out a timeline for history.
I have always sought out feedback on my writing from my dad, my husband, my sister and my sons. Although I don't remember receiving organized peer review in classes, in the right situation, I would value it.
Invalid or Invaluable? It depends. I have seen it work well in my classroom, but it true- it's not easy.
I was very interested in the research of Brammer and Rees, but not surprised with their results. The students mostly participated in peer review and feedback because the teacher required it and students valued the process in relation to how much the teachers expected them to do this and also to the extent that they were taught how to do this. Also, students who were taught and given more models were more confident in this strategy of peer review.
The students in this research are in a middle school. They don't come to school ( as Bizzell pointed out) with many ideas outside of their own community and culture. So it depends on what they are writing about . If they are allowed to write about things they know and care about, then they will be more engaged in writing and will value what they write. With more confidence, students will be more willing to learn about peer review as a way to develop their ideas and writing.
The article mentioned that students valued the process more in relation to how much training they had in peer review. Some teachers gave a list of questions to ask or look for. Definitely with middle school students,or younger, students will need very explicit instruction to build confidence.
Likewise, students should be steered away from any grammar or punctuation feedback before the content is first responded to. In the research they found that grammar feedback was often the majority what students gave and received. That can be helpful and needed IF it is after receiving feedback on the ideas and content and only if it is a student who is strong in grammar. Otherwise the students would be right who said it was a waste of time.
For peer review to be helpful, Teachers should give lots of scaffolding, and students strengths should be recognized. Some students who can't write a sentence well or or know where to put a comma may have great creative ideas. Students who can't spell may have a terrific oral vocabulary and be able to help with word choice.
Peer review in elementary can be helpful for both the giver and receiver but it would look differently than middle school. Like wise in graduate school peer revision should be easier but the principles are the same. Another point is that students can give feedback in other areas besides writing. There should be peer review( collaboration) across the contents. Often a student can help a peer work out a math problem in a different way, or one could give feedback in writing a lab report or figuring out a timeline for history.
I have always sought out feedback on my writing from my dad, my husband, my sister and my sons. Although I don't remember receiving organized peer review in classes, in the right situation, I would value it.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Recopying to Revise - Peter Krazke
Krazke speaks of his discovery, that recopying can be a superior method to revise, as more meta-cognitive and so more valuable learning tool than simply cutting and pasting on computers.
Backed up by Twain's explicit quote, his point seemed credible.
It does at first seem like a tedious exercise that may or may not help the revsing process. But though out the essay Kratze points out many who have experienced the smae "Aha." Donald Murray for one, gave his testimony that "rewriting a a draft is necessary to discover what one has to say on a subject."
Kratze makes the point that the ongoing struggle for students to write may be connected to the inability to think.and so scores from sat to Gre continue to drop. He states that the problem must be rooted in how we read and write. Highlighting lines in a text is not the same as writing notes in a margin. Writing in the margin would be either separating the important , or translating into the venacular, or summarizing - all strategies of meta-cognitive - thinking about learning.
If students are writing as robots, as Kratze suggests then there may be too much control- too much Bartholomae and not enough Elbow or Murray theories of writing.The question is raised, how to get them to join the conversation. But Kratze goes on to insist that students would take a better look at what they are writing and be forced to think about it if they recopy their papers.
My opinion with middle school students and possibly some high school students is , yes, they need to be taught or tricked into thinking but I have doubts that recopying is the answer. For one thing, students are very apt at simply rewriting their papers, as mine have done since we do not have immediate access to computers, without thinking. They frequently ignore their revision marks and comments and rewrite the same mistakes as they are writing as robots.
I believe the thinking must come in the first thoughts , the first lines or the first paragraph. If they are not involved in the conversation in the first draft, it seems unlikely that they would wake up in the second or third draft. I agree with the statement that students often don't see themselves as real writers and so they feel this is pointless because they don't know what they are saying in the first place.
Here, I can hear Andrea Lunsford saying that collaboration is the answer. With two people ( or more?) there will be guaranteed discourse which would lead to thinking and writing and more talking and thinking while writing. Two sets of eyes and ears would hear and see what is missing or what is unnecessary or a better word choice for revision.
Backed up by Twain's explicit quote, his point seemed credible.
It does at first seem like a tedious exercise that may or may not help the revsing process. But though out the essay Kratze points out many who have experienced the smae "Aha." Donald Murray for one, gave his testimony that "rewriting a a draft is necessary to discover what one has to say on a subject."
Kratze makes the point that the ongoing struggle for students to write may be connected to the inability to think.and so scores from sat to Gre continue to drop. He states that the problem must be rooted in how we read and write. Highlighting lines in a text is not the same as writing notes in a margin. Writing in the margin would be either separating the important , or translating into the venacular, or summarizing - all strategies of meta-cognitive - thinking about learning.
If students are writing as robots, as Kratze suggests then there may be too much control- too much Bartholomae and not enough Elbow or Murray theories of writing.The question is raised, how to get them to join the conversation. But Kratze goes on to insist that students would take a better look at what they are writing and be forced to think about it if they recopy their papers.
My opinion with middle school students and possibly some high school students is , yes, they need to be taught or tricked into thinking but I have doubts that recopying is the answer. For one thing, students are very apt at simply rewriting their papers, as mine have done since we do not have immediate access to computers, without thinking. They frequently ignore their revision marks and comments and rewrite the same mistakes as they are writing as robots.
I believe the thinking must come in the first thoughts , the first lines or the first paragraph. If they are not involved in the conversation in the first draft, it seems unlikely that they would wake up in the second or third draft. I agree with the statement that students often don't see themselves as real writers and so they feel this is pointless because they don't know what they are saying in the first place.
Here, I can hear Andrea Lunsford saying that collaboration is the answer. With two people ( or more?) there will be guaranteed discourse which would lead to thinking and writing and more talking and thinking while writing. Two sets of eyes and ears would hear and see what is missing or what is unnecessary or a better word choice for revision.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Albertson on Albertson and Lundsford
Lundsford strikes me as an excellent writer as well as an activist. For her, writing is the way to make positive changes - by her and by others.
Her concept of forgotten Memory or the art of memory is still not completely clear in my mind but I tried to express this idea to the extent that I understand.
When I come to a word or idea that I don't completely understand, it helps to discuss it with another student or teacher.
Collaboration. This is why I gave the writing assignment. I wanted the audience to experience 'collaboration,' one of several concepts this author refers to. I wanted you all to try to come up with a definition or if not, questions about it. At least it might build some background to help grasp some of the ideas I would present. I also mentioned that this exercise may help you to come up with questions for the Q& A part.
I believe I showed with examples that Lunds ford is a Feminist, influenced by her experiences and also the feminist issues coming to light when she was going on to higher education and entering an arena that has not always been friendly to women. I showed also that this is also a problem for people of color or non- anglos by heritage.
There was collaboration of feminist writers who recoverd the the women's voices, the female writers that were silenced by hegemony.
Collaboration was referred to by Lunsford as a fruitful method of writing. She explained that when she wrote with her friend Lisa Ede. One would sit at the computer typing while the other was composing. Their method was to talk - write - revise- talk -write -talk and revise and so on. There was important discussion that went on which included immediate feedback and also with four eyes a better way to check for conventions and fluency of their sentences.
Perhaps I should have described more how Lundsford writes as an individual. The idea that she must not cannot write until she can see the whole argument in her head. When she cannot find a point to critique , something to question, she may make herself sit on the couch for hours waiting for the idea come. She says she writes fairly quickly once she has it in her head but she absolutely hates to revise. She does have to especially when the publisher tells her so. She has learned to trust the publisher and others who reread her writing.
I believe I showed that Lundsford is always thinking of and identifying potential or real problems and then brainstorming some answers. Her concern for students coming into the doctoral program and not staying or students who do not get in made her write about the importance of mentors, and she gave a good example.
The reason for replacing the GRE is the same as the argument against the SAT for college bound; "that the scores always favor white students." Culturally, there may be questions that relate more to an Anglo American's experience than to a person of color or other different heritage. Then there is the problem of engagement. Are students involved in their education in meningful ways . Could they be collaborating with each other or with teachers on writing projects. Why not have a shared dissertations? a good topic to research. Lunsford celebrates a wider interpretation of English studies which she calls breathtaking imaginative projects. perhaps some Professors are not asopen to change as lundsford.
Finally she expresses her fears but also her hopes in the Gold rush for copy rights and ownership of Intellectual Property. With collaboration of writing projects comes the question of ownership. Who is the author. On the one hand there is good old American Greed. On the other side there are ideas for working together, having shared ownership. I attempted to give some examples of both. Lundsford's writing expresses still an optimism that there will be more shifting of values.
As a writer, I struggle with having too much to say or not explaining fully. I think the solution continues to be that I must narrow the topic and identify what is important and what is not.
Her concept of forgotten Memory or the art of memory is still not completely clear in my mind but I tried to express this idea to the extent that I understand.
When I come to a word or idea that I don't completely understand, it helps to discuss it with another student or teacher.
Collaboration. This is why I gave the writing assignment. I wanted the audience to experience 'collaboration,' one of several concepts this author refers to. I wanted you all to try to come up with a definition or if not, questions about it. At least it might build some background to help grasp some of the ideas I would present. I also mentioned that this exercise may help you to come up with questions for the Q& A part.
I believe I showed with examples that Lunds ford is a Feminist, influenced by her experiences and also the feminist issues coming to light when she was going on to higher education and entering an arena that has not always been friendly to women. I showed also that this is also a problem for people of color or non- anglos by heritage.
There was collaboration of feminist writers who recoverd the the women's voices, the female writers that were silenced by hegemony.
Collaboration was referred to by Lunsford as a fruitful method of writing. She explained that when she wrote with her friend Lisa Ede. One would sit at the computer typing while the other was composing. Their method was to talk - write - revise- talk -write -talk and revise and so on. There was important discussion that went on which included immediate feedback and also with four eyes a better way to check for conventions and fluency of their sentences.
Perhaps I should have described more how Lundsford writes as an individual. The idea that she must not cannot write until she can see the whole argument in her head. When she cannot find a point to critique , something to question, she may make herself sit on the couch for hours waiting for the idea come. She says she writes fairly quickly once she has it in her head but she absolutely hates to revise. She does have to especially when the publisher tells her so. She has learned to trust the publisher and others who reread her writing.
I believe I showed that Lundsford is always thinking of and identifying potential or real problems and then brainstorming some answers. Her concern for students coming into the doctoral program and not staying or students who do not get in made her write about the importance of mentors, and she gave a good example.
The reason for replacing the GRE is the same as the argument against the SAT for college bound; "that the scores always favor white students." Culturally, there may be questions that relate more to an Anglo American's experience than to a person of color or other different heritage. Then there is the problem of engagement. Are students involved in their education in meningful ways . Could they be collaborating with each other or with teachers on writing projects. Why not have a shared dissertations? a good topic to research. Lunsford celebrates a wider interpretation of English studies which she calls breathtaking imaginative projects. perhaps some Professors are not asopen to change as lundsford.
Finally she expresses her fears but also her hopes in the Gold rush for copy rights and ownership of Intellectual Property. With collaboration of writing projects comes the question of ownership. Who is the author. On the one hand there is good old American Greed. On the other side there are ideas for working together, having shared ownership. I attempted to give some examples of both. Lundsford's writing expresses still an optimism that there will be more shifting of values.
As a writer, I struggle with having too much to say or not explaining fully. I think the solution continues to be that I must narrow the topic and identify what is important and what is not.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
On Tony and Donald Murray:
I don't know if I enjoyed this presentation more because I already liked and was drawn to Murray's theories of writing, or because I loved the style in which Tony presented. Full of energy he wanted to be connected with his audience. He had the good idea of an activity in writing , first the wrong way and then the right Murray way.
Having the same idea of giving the audience a writing activity in order to help them experience a concept, I applauded and whole heartedly joined in.
Even though he took his 30 minutes he felt rushed and I felt rushed as I tried to absorb the last list of important information. I felt like I wanted to hear more about Murrays' teaching points and so I hope he will but some of his Power Point on is Blog for us to read.
I have been aware that New Hampshire and Boynton and Heinemann publish books from the process writing theory. They also publish books about second language readers and writers.
I wonder how New Hampshire, a whole state became an abundant source for a certain kind of writing?
nancy
I don't know if I enjoyed this presentation more because I already liked and was drawn to Murray's theories of writing, or because I loved the style in which Tony presented. Full of energy he wanted to be connected with his audience. He had the good idea of an activity in writing , first the wrong way and then the right Murray way.
Having the same idea of giving the audience a writing activity in order to help them experience a concept, I applauded and whole heartedly joined in.
Even though he took his 30 minutes he felt rushed and I felt rushed as I tried to absorb the last list of important information. I felt like I wanted to hear more about Murrays' teaching points and so I hope he will but some of his Power Point on is Blog for us to read.
I have been aware that New Hampshire and Boynton and Heinemann publish books from the process writing theory. They also publish books about second language readers and writers.
I wonder how New Hampshire, a whole state became an abundant source for a certain kind of writing?
nancy
On Ong and the inportance of spoken words
The problem with videos as part of a presentation for me is that while I am tuned in and watching it has my attention. But unless I take notes I often remember what I hear, more than what I see. Perhaps, there is an argument that the pencil and printing press did not lose the art of memory, but perhaps enhanced it. I remember what I read and what I write.
I actually do like all the videos that we have seen and prefer to have them because it gives me the essence of the speaker, his voice and gestures and tone. The medium is the message. Just watching someone move and speak helps us form a personality. ( ethos?)
Eric highlighted many ways that Ong gives importance to the oral word. From the spiritual, connecting with the what the bible says about "The word" being God, to the esthetic use of words in Poetry, to forming a group, an audience, and as a precursor to literacy.
The connection between oral language and composition is that discourse comes first. Lunsford says that one benefit of writing with a partner is that there is more talking before writing and so helps the writer to think and form ideas and arguments.
In fact all three presentations on February 10 emphasized the high importance of not just thinking but orality, discourse as a rehearsal before writing.
This is also crucial for second language writers.
Eric's printed and visual information with the diagram is helpful information to understand Ong and his theories.
Nancy
I actually do like all the videos that we have seen and prefer to have them because it gives me the essence of the speaker, his voice and gestures and tone. The medium is the message. Just watching someone move and speak helps us form a personality. ( ethos?)
Eric highlighted many ways that Ong gives importance to the oral word. From the spiritual, connecting with the what the bible says about "The word" being God, to the esthetic use of words in Poetry, to forming a group, an audience, and as a precursor to literacy.
The connection between oral language and composition is that discourse comes first. Lunsford says that one benefit of writing with a partner is that there is more talking before writing and so helps the writer to think and form ideas and arguments.
In fact all three presentations on February 10 emphasized the high importance of not just thinking but orality, discourse as a rehearsal before writing.
This is also crucial for second language writers.
Eric's printed and visual information with the diagram is helpful information to understand Ong and his theories.
Nancy
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Comment and Rebuttal/ Peter Elbow's method
I have heard of Elbow and read some of his debate with Bartholomae, but it was very interesting and informative to actually see and hear him describing his memoir as a writer.
If Elbow is the first or one of several to initiate freewriting as a support to help students get started and to help them find their voice, then we must be grateful.
I do not pretend to totally understand this debate about sincerity and which kind is best, etc. The charge that Elbow makes much of having faith as a writer strikes similar to Plato and Aristotle saying that a rhetorist is more believable and convincing if he has good character. I don't know if faith and sincerity is kin to having a good character.
I supppose writers should be able to do "what ever works " as Elbow says, "functionalism. " By that, I mean if a writer makes a clear, and pursuasive argument by " the direct method: create a piece, finish it and critique it ( the dangerous direct process) , then it works. If the open-ended loop process with many drafts works to make a sound convincing essay, then go for it.
I do agree that Voice is important to the audience and the writer. I have not thought about the writer being uncomfortable in her own voice. But I do believe that finding one's voice is a worthy goal as it may add to sincerity or a lively ( life like?) quality.
Elbow says that the best way to be comfortable in one's own voice is to have a real/authentic audience which gives honest feedback. Apparently it is as hard to get honest feedback as it is to be honestly sincere. Although Lunsford may not agree with all of Elbows methods, she too is advocating honest feedback between graduate students as they collaborate on projects.
I have heard of Elbow and read some of his debate with Bartholomae, but it was very interesting and informative to actually see and hear him describing his memoir as a writer.
If Elbow is the first or one of several to initiate freewriting as a support to help students get started and to help them find their voice, then we must be grateful.
I do not pretend to totally understand this debate about sincerity and which kind is best, etc. The charge that Elbow makes much of having faith as a writer strikes similar to Plato and Aristotle saying that a rhetorist is more believable and convincing if he has good character. I don't know if faith and sincerity is kin to having a good character.
I supppose writers should be able to do "what ever works " as Elbow says, "functionalism. " By that, I mean if a writer makes a clear, and pursuasive argument by " the direct method: create a piece, finish it and critique it ( the dangerous direct process) , then it works. If the open-ended loop process with many drafts works to make a sound convincing essay, then go for it.
I do agree that Voice is important to the audience and the writer. I have not thought about the writer being uncomfortable in her own voice. But I do believe that finding one's voice is a worthy goal as it may add to sincerity or a lively ( life like?) quality.
Elbow says that the best way to be comfortable in one's own voice is to have a real/authentic audience which gives honest feedback. Apparently it is as hard to get honest feedback as it is to be honestly sincere. Although Lunsford may not agree with all of Elbows methods, she too is advocating honest feedback between graduate students as they collaborate on projects.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
James L Kinneavy-
This composition theorist seems to have been a key influence bringing composition studies from the start of the 20th century up to the present. He is a traditionalist in that he believes there must be structure and guidelines as we saw with his triangle of four compositon genres borrowing from PLatos ruke of three : audience, occasion, and purpose
I really enjoyed being pulled through history with this presentation , showing who and what influenced kinneavy. I also appreciated Kinneavy's clarifying analogy to a window. This helped me start to understand what is expression, vs persuasive, vsreferetial, vs esthetically
he grew up being a member of a brother hood the Christian brothers. This disciplined life style at such a young age may be the discipline that he brought into "reinventing the rhetoric tradition" and making writing a scholarly pursuit.
Klayton told us that Kinneavy was upset ( perhaps toward the end of his life that composition studies was losing it's discipline and structure, that college courses were fuzzy and classes being taught by graduate students. I can't help thinking about Andrea Lunsford, three decades younger, who is all about having more and more graduate students have more opportunities to teach, rather than less, and in collaboration with faculty. Lunsford also would be the antithesis of clearly defined courses; instead, she recommends that faculty listen to graduate students and learn from their creative ways of producing composition with media.
This composition theorist seems to have been a key influence bringing composition studies from the start of the 20th century up to the present. He is a traditionalist in that he believes there must be structure and guidelines as we saw with his triangle of four compositon genres borrowing from PLatos ruke of three : audience, occasion, and purpose
I really enjoyed being pulled through history with this presentation , showing who and what influenced kinneavy. I also appreciated Kinneavy's clarifying analogy to a window. This helped me start to understand what is expression, vs persuasive, vsreferetial, vs esthetically
he grew up being a member of a brother hood the Christian brothers. This disciplined life style at such a young age may be the discipline that he brought into "reinventing the rhetoric tradition" and making writing a scholarly pursuit.
Klayton told us that Kinneavy was upset ( perhaps toward the end of his life that composition studies was losing it's discipline and structure, that college courses were fuzzy and classes being taught by graduate students. I can't help thinking about Andrea Lunsford, three decades younger, who is all about having more and more graduate students have more opportunities to teach, rather than less, and in collaboration with faculty. Lunsford also would be the antithesis of clearly defined courses; instead, she recommends that faculty listen to graduate students and learn from their creative ways of producing composition with media.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Process and Post process and writing pedagogies
I enjoyed this discussion as I have been involved with the topic both as a Language arts and ELL teacher. I was interested in reading about MY history as it is a little less than 20 years ago that I received my LA teaching certificate.
I did not not know the vocabulary that goes with it but I was there.Somehow I got a hold of Nancy Atwell and then Donald Graves and Lucy Calkins?? I read Reading and Writing in the Middle and it made so much sense to me. The only pedagogy I knew if at that time was my own experience in High school and a little from my children's teachers. When my soons were in school I was too but I remember that writing was being discussed.
I tried to use as much as I could of Nancy Atwells information when I did student teaching and it served me well and I think my students. There and later in my first Reading teacher I asked students to journal each day often on themes of our novel. I definitelty think that exercise helped students to write good essays on the nuances of what they read. Later when I was restricted ( sort of ) to reading teacher I used Nancy's letter to the students explaining how we would have a conversation with them journaling about what they read and I would answer.
I am glad that Matsuda stated that, " There is no doubt that the process movement helped to call attention to aspects of writing that had been neglected in many writing classrooms."
I was not surprised that there were writers/teachers like Barrett Wendell who were trying to, " make composition a humane and intimate discipline. But I was surprised to read that, " the process movement hads been themost successful in thehistory of pedagogy reform in the teaching of writing."
I believe Mr Matsuda makes his point in the end that the process and post -process writing theories paralleled what was going on in second language writing. Just as the process movement developed theories against current -traditional rhetoric ; second Langauge writing began to move away from the audiolingual approach which did not include writing.
I am aware that the two pedagogies the rocess writing and the move to include composition within ELL instruction as valid , and turning to techniques as free association and emphasis of quantity over qualilty.
I am glad for the process writing pedagogy that has developed and yet there are concerns -both for ELLs and other composition students. Those that struggle with literacy either from lack of experiences and background as a child or because of growing up in a non english language, many students young and adult have gaps. They have huge gaps of vocabulary which affects reading and writing and they often have gaps in conventions, spelling and general phonics.
Thus the discourse over phonics for young children or whole language. My children learned to read and write at home before entereing K ( on a basic level) But i agree that there is aneed for phonics for those who need it and there is a place for whoe language. ELL students do much better when everything is whole. It is easier for them to understand the vocabulary in context, and frm there concepts across the contexct areas. Those struggling students do need explicit teaching in some areas but they also can benefit of a mix with the whole and process writing theories.
I did not not know the vocabulary that goes with it but I was there.Somehow I got a hold of Nancy Atwell and then Donald Graves and Lucy Calkins?? I read Reading and Writing in the Middle and it made so much sense to me. The only pedagogy I knew if at that time was my own experience in High school and a little from my children's teachers. When my soons were in school I was too but I remember that writing was being discussed.
I tried to use as much as I could of Nancy Atwells information when I did student teaching and it served me well and I think my students. There and later in my first Reading teacher I asked students to journal each day often on themes of our novel. I definitelty think that exercise helped students to write good essays on the nuances of what they read. Later when I was restricted ( sort of ) to reading teacher I used Nancy's letter to the students explaining how we would have a conversation with them journaling about what they read and I would answer.
I am glad that Matsuda stated that, " There is no doubt that the process movement helped to call attention to aspects of writing that had been neglected in many writing classrooms."
I was not surprised that there were writers/teachers like Barrett Wendell who were trying to, " make composition a humane and intimate discipline. But I was surprised to read that, " the process movement hads been themost successful in thehistory of pedagogy reform in the teaching of writing."
I believe Mr Matsuda makes his point in the end that the process and post -process writing theories paralleled what was going on in second language writing. Just as the process movement developed theories against current -traditional rhetoric ; second Langauge writing began to move away from the audiolingual approach which did not include writing.
I am aware that the two pedagogies the rocess writing and the move to include composition within ELL instruction as valid , and turning to techniques as free association and emphasis of quantity over qualilty.
I am glad for the process writing pedagogy that has developed and yet there are concerns -both for ELLs and other composition students. Those that struggle with literacy either from lack of experiences and background as a child or because of growing up in a non english language, many students young and adult have gaps. They have huge gaps of vocabulary which affects reading and writing and they often have gaps in conventions, spelling and general phonics.
Thus the discourse over phonics for young children or whole language. My children learned to read and write at home before entereing K ( on a basic level) But i agree that there is aneed for phonics for those who need it and there is a place for whoe language. ELL students do much better when everything is whole. It is easier for them to understand the vocabulary in context, and frm there concepts across the contexct areas. Those struggling students do need explicit teaching in some areas but they also can benefit of a mix with the whole and process writing theories.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The culture of Bio technology
Again this was a very long article and seemed like others - repetitious. This author is not warning us that Bio technology is coming and soon we will have a chip embedded in our arm instead of carrying our little USB on a cord around our necks or on a key chain. He is warning us as writers and rhetorics that we need to make our stake and be writing as part of the whole process.
I did the math and I am glad I don' think I will be around by then. My one regret is that by the time they discover how to cure Alzheimers I will already be 85 and far into it if still alive.
We must pay attention and see that soon electronic technology and biotechnology will be entwined together. This will affect our bodies as well as our scientific discoveries.
Tis change will come soon and it will be driven as a commodity and it will impact our economy just as the computer technology has. Just as the we went from a record to a CD to a tiny device around your neck on a string that gives you unending music and other audio entertainment. It may just go away completely and be in our bodies like a chip.
The good is all the diseases tha cna be cured. People will be healthier and live longer... The down side is that there will be options like controlling your child's gender and intellect. Then it will be a society of the rich who can control many biological gene connected characteristics.
The author is not saying this is all good or all bad but just that we must be writing research , we must be part of the change as writers, giving our opinions. We have a responsibility to critique these changes as they come.
One concern that has been identified already is Intellectual property. Who will be the owners .. The scientists, the electro-technologists, the writers?
"As we learn, teach and write with new technologies we have a responsibility to analyze and mold the digital compositions of today and tomorrow."
I did the math and I am glad I don' think I will be around by then. My one regret is that by the time they discover how to cure Alzheimers I will already be 85 and far into it if still alive.
We must pay attention and see that soon electronic technology and biotechnology will be entwined together. This will affect our bodies as well as our scientific discoveries.
Tis change will come soon and it will be driven as a commodity and it will impact our economy just as the computer technology has. Just as the we went from a record to a CD to a tiny device around your neck on a string that gives you unending music and other audio entertainment. It may just go away completely and be in our bodies like a chip.
The good is all the diseases tha cna be cured. People will be healthier and live longer... The down side is that there will be options like controlling your child's gender and intellect. Then it will be a society of the rich who can control many biological gene connected characteristics.
The author is not saying this is all good or all bad but just that we must be writing research , we must be part of the change as writers, giving our opinions. We have a responsibility to critique these changes as they come.
One concern that has been identified already is Intellectual property. Who will be the owners .. The scientists, the electro-technologists, the writers?
"As we learn, teach and write with new technologies we have a responsibility to analyze and mold the digital compositions of today and tomorrow."
The politics of MSWORD/nancy
This was a very long article to say just a few things:
Composition teachers should beware of the impact of "our word processor's grammar and style checker," on their students. ( Microsoft Grammar Checker)
It could make our students, Lazy, confused about their iwerd suggestio0ons or it just make their conventions wrong! This is similar to introducing calculators to math students, except that they are more accurate.
Teachers must teach students to ,"recognize computer interfaces are noninnocent.."
2 A second concern is that this real time grammar and style checker, as it pops up as the student is typing, will cause students to believe that grammar is more important than content.
We are all teaching that Content and voice, word choice are all important and save the
It is ubiquitous, nearly invisible, and increasing in power.
3Are the people , linguists and computer geeks wise enough to know what suggestions to make? Apparently not. I believe I have ignored everything except spell check.
I admit, I have come to lean on that and I dislike that this blog does not have it. In addition the computer I use at home only gives me a red line but no suggestion for a better way to spell words - BECAUSE- it bothers my husband so much he turned that tool off!
So apparently it is possible to muffle the MSGC
I don't believe that the MSGC was meant to take the place of a teacher any more than the calculator in math class. I do think that it was, for better or worse, a selling point on the computer word processor - like a GPS on a car. Are they more accurate than map quest which often steers people the wrong way? I don't know as we don't have one ... yet!
4. The MSGC takes away the choices a student might think about, as an author, if he were just putting the pencil to the paper instead of word processing.
Micro soft is apparently working to make more changes and update this tool , but for many it is too littel too late.
My only connection with this problem is that when I use alta vista translator. When I need to send a note to a Spanish speaking parent, I type in my paragraph in English and then click , it translates my paragraph into Spanish.. Well sort of. This includes similar problems. It may mistake a homonym with the wrong meaning. For example Manana means tomorrow and also morning. So if I wrote " I will see you tomorrow at 2:00 , it may say, " I will see you this morning." usually it is a bigger mistake that leaves the sentence not making sense.
However, I am on guard! I check the entire paragraph carefully and confidently make corrections when I am finished. After all I can write in Spanish fairly well. I use Alta vista because it is faster and easier. Does that mean I am lazy? I prefer to think that I am managing my time!
The suggestion at the end of the article does make sense. Teach our students what MSGC is and how inaccurate it can be. Discuss the shortcomings and encourage them to look at the options. Have them compare their answers to MSGC.
nancy
Composition teachers should beware of the impact of "our word processor's grammar and style checker," on their students. ( Microsoft Grammar Checker)
It could make our students, Lazy, confused about their iwerd suggestio0ons or it just make their conventions wrong! This is similar to introducing calculators to math students, except that they are more accurate.
Teachers must teach students to ,"recognize computer interfaces are noninnocent.."
2 A second concern is that this real time grammar and style checker, as it pops up as the student is typing, will cause students to believe that grammar is more important than content.
We are all teaching that Content and voice, word choice are all important and save the
It is ubiquitous, nearly invisible, and increasing in power.
3Are the people , linguists and computer geeks wise enough to know what suggestions to make? Apparently not. I believe I have ignored everything except spell check.
I admit, I have come to lean on that and I dislike that this blog does not have it. In addition the computer I use at home only gives me a red line but no suggestion for a better way to spell words - BECAUSE- it bothers my husband so much he turned that tool off!
So apparently it is possible to muffle the MSGC
I don't believe that the MSGC was meant to take the place of a teacher any more than the calculator in math class. I do think that it was, for better or worse, a selling point on the computer word processor - like a GPS on a car. Are they more accurate than map quest which often steers people the wrong way? I don't know as we don't have one ... yet!
4. The MSGC takes away the choices a student might think about, as an author, if he were just putting the pencil to the paper instead of word processing.
Micro soft is apparently working to make more changes and update this tool , but for many it is too littel too late.
My only connection with this problem is that when I use alta vista translator. When I need to send a note to a Spanish speaking parent, I type in my paragraph in English and then click , it translates my paragraph into Spanish.. Well sort of. This includes similar problems. It may mistake a homonym with the wrong meaning. For example Manana means tomorrow and also morning. So if I wrote " I will see you tomorrow at 2:00 , it may say, " I will see you this morning." usually it is a bigger mistake that leaves the sentence not making sense.
However, I am on guard! I check the entire paragraph carefully and confidently make corrections when I am finished. After all I can write in Spanish fairly well. I use Alta vista because it is faster and easier. Does that mean I am lazy? I prefer to think that I am managing my time!
The suggestion at the end of the article does make sense. Teach our students what MSGC is and how inaccurate it can be. Discuss the shortcomings and encourage them to look at the options. Have them compare their answers to MSGC.
nancy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)