I'm SO glad to finally be getting into stuff that I can really see the importance of. Not that the other stuff wasn't important, but reading about things I can picture myself doing in the next few years is fun!
I thought the section on New Rhetoric was interesting because it seems so simple! Focusing on the process through revision and individualized instruction seems like the best way to create writers, hands-down (at least compared to what I've read about so far) ... so why isn't it used more often? Williams seems to understand that the whole point of this method is allowing students to take the process at their own pace and make it into whatever is most helpful and productive for them. He makes it so clear to his readers in this chapter! Why, then, do most teachers misuse this method? Obviously (at least to Williams and I), the reason this method works is because of its flexibility and individuality -- so why do teachers insist on "fossiliz[ing] the [writing] stages as composing universals"? The 'universal steps' are meant to be more of a guide than law, right? If I'm just a lowly college student and I get that, why can't experienced teachers? Or is it harder than that? Perhaps Williams doesn't address the difficulties of this method fully. He touches on them, saying this method is "incongruent with the assembly-line organization of public education", that "collaborative work groups can be very difficult", and that "individual conferences can be a daunting challenge". My main issue with Williams stems from this passage. In this text, he often brings up issues/problems/holes in logic, but rarely addresses them. In this case, he simply said it was worth it to overcome these challenges ... well, HOW?! There are a lot of improvements to be made to the school system if 'just suck it up' is considered an acceptable answer to teachers problems. So, if these issues are overcome-able, how do teachers overcome them? Explaining how to implement this process is how to get teachers to use it correctly. Providing answers to questions and solutions to problems is how to make this system as effective as it was designed to be!
The "best practices" section was extremely applicable to my future career. Thank you, Williams! He spoke about the process approach again in this system, further mourning the improper implementation of it. My comments above still stand. I really appreciated his three-factor approach: asking students to write often in meaningful contexts, providing frequent feedback on work in progress, and requiring lots of revisions. In this case, I loved how Williams told teachers exactly how to accomplish those three goals: through writing workshops. However, do the obstacles mentioned regarding the process approach (individual conferences and group work proving to be a challenge in the classroom)? I would assume so. How, then are those obstacles overcome? I really appreciated the examples Williams gave about each stage of the composing process (invention, discussion, freewriting, outlining, etc.). How should teachers choose which activities to use in their classes? Should the teacher make all of them available and have the children choose from among them, or make a limited amount available, or have each student try each method once, or have Mondays be designated for one activity and Tuesdays for another, or ... the possibilities are endless! What is most effective? I understand that allowing the students choose is the best way to go, but how do teachers facilitate that? I'm sure the students should be exposed to a variety of options before they are allowed to choose one. How does one go about that? Also, the "pausing" section (p.117-118) REALLY confused me. What is the point of pausing?! I think the "phase model" example really summed up this section well -- the stages are in flux depending on each student's process; they reoccur and are interchangeable depending on the students. Love it!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Contemporary Rhetoric
I really enjoyed this practical look at teaching writing, and found myself comparing my "teaching style" to each style of teaching writing that Williams explored. His thoughts about teaching the way you were taught is certainly valid and sound, but I think that the more we talk about that issue, the less likely it is to happen. I feel like I've heard that over and over and, as a result, am going to be extremely cautious of that phenomenon and critical of my reasoning.
The section I found myself putting the most notes in the margin of was the section on current-traditional rhetoric. I liked where this school of thought was coming from: the idea of "writing as thinking", hence, teaching students to think will produce good writers. However, I don't understand why so many teachers view the study of literature as a way to cultivate critical thinking. Where did that come from? What is the reasoning behind that ... or do teachers simply teach that way without thinking? Is this an example of teachers teaching as they were taught, or do people truly believe that literature fosters creative thinking? I, like Williams, have noticed the shift in instruction from essay to letter writing because I was a product of a letter-writing curriculum! I know how to write business letters, friendly letters, personal letters, memos ... the list goes on. Is that a signal of low standards, or do teachers actually think letter-writing develops critical thinking skills. I cannot imagine many people believe the latter, so I consider the former: haven't most (if not all) teachers learned that student performance is a function of expectation? Low expectation leads to low performance, and high expectations lead to higher performance. If all a teacher expects of a student is for him/her to be able to write a letter, of course they won't be able to interpret literature or think critically!
A quote that really got to me was on page 45, when Williams said "instruction includes little, if any, attention to audience and the reasons for writing but instead focuses on the form of writing, as though composition somehow exists outside a social context. That's impossible, not to mention completely ineffective. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would write a note to his/her boss in the same way he/she would write a note to his/her child. Yes, maybe the person would use the same simple form: greeting, body, closing, but would the language, grammar, or content be similar in the two? Probably not. I love that Williams spoke to the importance of parts in a whole -- how each "type of writing" (compare/contrast, description, exposition) can be found in the same piece. These types are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are all intertwined. Williams sums it up concisely when he says "by focusing on bits and pieces of writing ... the current-traditional approach ignores most of what writing is about". I absolutely agree!
My favorite part of this section was when Williams explained the complete ineffectiveness of this model by saying that writing is not an ordered process and cannot be sequenced: that it's too complex for that. He scorns the idea that "writing is like baking a cake" -- the precise way writing was taught to me! Williams adds that a specific, certain-number-of-steps writing process produces shallow, unreflective writing, and no one wants that! While I might have been offended by Williams "attacks" on the way I learned before reading this section, I now understand the uselessness of the cake analogy, and hope to change my writing instruction as a teacher. I don't want to fall into the "teach as you were taught" trap!
The section I found myself putting the most notes in the margin of was the section on current-traditional rhetoric. I liked where this school of thought was coming from: the idea of "writing as thinking", hence, teaching students to think will produce good writers. However, I don't understand why so many teachers view the study of literature as a way to cultivate critical thinking. Where did that come from? What is the reasoning behind that ... or do teachers simply teach that way without thinking? Is this an example of teachers teaching as they were taught, or do people truly believe that literature fosters creative thinking? I, like Williams, have noticed the shift in instruction from essay to letter writing because I was a product of a letter-writing curriculum! I know how to write business letters, friendly letters, personal letters, memos ... the list goes on. Is that a signal of low standards, or do teachers actually think letter-writing develops critical thinking skills. I cannot imagine many people believe the latter, so I consider the former: haven't most (if not all) teachers learned that student performance is a function of expectation? Low expectation leads to low performance, and high expectations lead to higher performance. If all a teacher expects of a student is for him/her to be able to write a letter, of course they won't be able to interpret literature or think critically!
A quote that really got to me was on page 45, when Williams said "instruction includes little, if any, attention to audience and the reasons for writing but instead focuses on the form of writing, as though composition somehow exists outside a social context. That's impossible, not to mention completely ineffective. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would write a note to his/her boss in the same way he/she would write a note to his/her child. Yes, maybe the person would use the same simple form: greeting, body, closing, but would the language, grammar, or content be similar in the two? Probably not. I love that Williams spoke to the importance of parts in a whole -- how each "type of writing" (compare/contrast, description, exposition) can be found in the same piece. These types are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are all intertwined. Williams sums it up concisely when he says "by focusing on bits and pieces of writing ... the current-traditional approach ignores most of what writing is about". I absolutely agree!
My favorite part of this section was when Williams explained the complete ineffectiveness of this model by saying that writing is not an ordered process and cannot be sequenced: that it's too complex for that. He scorns the idea that "writing is like baking a cake" -- the precise way writing was taught to me! Williams adds that a specific, certain-number-of-steps writing process produces shallow, unreflective writing, and no one wants that! While I might have been offended by Williams "attacks" on the way I learned before reading this section, I now understand the uselessness of the cake analogy, and hope to change my writing instruction as a teacher. I don't want to fall into the "teach as you were taught" trap!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Foundations of Rhetoric
I'm a junior at JMU who has been pretty successful thus far in my college career. You can safely assume that I read well and am also fairly apt at reading for comprehension. With that being said, I could hardly get through this chapter. I picked it up and put it down at least 5 times, having read a few pages but having gotten too bored to possibly go on. I kept hoping that it would get better, but it didn't. I did read the whole thing, but about 10% of it actually "stuck" because it wasn't presented in a way that made me understand. SO ... I'm not really going to talk about the same "main ideas" Williams did in this chapter. Honestly, I couldn't care less about these people due to the way the information was presented. I admit that knowing the background of the things you are teaching is important, and I know that this information will probably be useful one day ... but really, Williams?! REALLY? It didn't even seem like HE was interested.
Reading this chapter made me think about how terrible it is to have a teacher who couldn't care less about you or your interests. As a partially college-educated person, I understand that meaning and knowledge can be gleaned from just about anything if you look for it. However, I also understand that finding that meaning is far easier, not to mention far more enjoyable, if someone makes it relevant. Answer the question children are perpetually asking: "WHY?" It's probably safe to assume that the people in this WRTC 340 class are more academically motivated than your average American, so maybe Williams thought that motivation was enough. Well, it isn't. When presented with boring, over-my-head, who cares information, I revert right back to my whiney 6-year-old self, begging anyone who will listen to make it stop.
Children are completely egocentric. This is developmentally factual. So, when a teacher presents them with material, it must be related DIRECTLY to them. Otherwise, they won't understand it and will not be able to successfully, independently apply that information. While teens and adults are not as developmentally egocentric as children, I think they're still pretty darn self-centered. So, why not help them apply what is being taught to their own lives? If the material being presented is SO important that it must be taught, there should be some pretty obvious implications to everyday life. Even in high school. Even in college. I would even daresay that it's true in the workplace. Someone wants you to know this specific information for a reason, so why not enlighten the learner?! Tell the learner why, and they'll learn better. They will internalize the reason and hopefully become intrinsically motivated to learn. The need for gold stars and snacks as prizes will lessen because students will understand WHY. They will understand that they will personally use this information in the years to come, that they'll thank their teachers later. Teachers have some amount of power over student's apathy. Don't allow them to be apathetic ... show them why it is important.
Now, I'm not saying that answering the "why" question will solve all behavior problems and make under-achievers straight A students. But if answering one question will help children find meaning or score higher or simply be spared the absolute, undeniable, make-me-want-to-cry boredom that I just experienced, why not?!
Reading this chapter made me think about how terrible it is to have a teacher who couldn't care less about you or your interests. As a partially college-educated person, I understand that meaning and knowledge can be gleaned from just about anything if you look for it. However, I also understand that finding that meaning is far easier, not to mention far more enjoyable, if someone makes it relevant. Answer the question children are perpetually asking: "WHY?" It's probably safe to assume that the people in this WRTC 340 class are more academically motivated than your average American, so maybe Williams thought that motivation was enough. Well, it isn't. When presented with boring, over-my-head, who cares information, I revert right back to my whiney 6-year-old self, begging anyone who will listen to make it stop.
Children are completely egocentric. This is developmentally factual. So, when a teacher presents them with material, it must be related DIRECTLY to them. Otherwise, they won't understand it and will not be able to successfully, independently apply that information. While teens and adults are not as developmentally egocentric as children, I think they're still pretty darn self-centered. So, why not help them apply what is being taught to their own lives? If the material being presented is SO important that it must be taught, there should be some pretty obvious implications to everyday life. Even in high school. Even in college. I would even daresay that it's true in the workplace. Someone wants you to know this specific information for a reason, so why not enlighten the learner?! Tell the learner why, and they'll learn better. They will internalize the reason and hopefully become intrinsically motivated to learn. The need for gold stars and snacks as prizes will lessen because students will understand WHY. They will understand that they will personally use this information in the years to come, that they'll thank their teachers later. Teachers have some amount of power over student's apathy. Don't allow them to be apathetic ... show them why it is important.
Now, I'm not saying that answering the "why" question will solve all behavior problems and make under-achievers straight A students. But if answering one question will help children find meaning or score higher or simply be spared the absolute, undeniable, make-me-want-to-cry boredom that I just experienced, why not?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)