The Friendly City Reading Series offered us an opportunity to hear excerpts from Mary Beth Keane and Gina Welch, two published authors, as well as there perspectives on the pieces they wrote and the process they underwent.
For the first section of each author’s speaking point they read a piece from their book—Mary read about an Irish immigrant family and Gina read about her undercover experience within the Evangelical Church. While they were both compelling pieces I was particularly drawn to Gina’s story of her concealed identity within the evangelical church in which she, an atheist, played role as a faithful believer as she studied the inner workings of evangelicals. This idea of hoodwinking a group of people into thinking that you are one of them, I would have thought, would have been outcast as immoral or at the least as not a ‘good’ task to undertake. But in the name of publishing…
It wasn’t until they both took the stage at the end to answer questions that the topic turned to pertinent issues to our class discussions. The writing process they had taken was tremendous—both had tons and tons of notes and recordings throughout a year’s or more worth of work. What I found particularly stunning was the fact that Mary had, at one point, thrown away a month’s worth of writing. The dedication to revision and process is apparent and we could all only hope to have the courage to start over or revise a direction taken in our own writings. I think that technology in general and the word processor specifically allow for this process of editing and revision (especially to the extent of throwing out months of work) a little easier to swallow.
Another topic of interest was a question posed for them both that asked, how has writing this book changed the way that you teach writing in your classrooms? Gina’s response was the only one I can recall in which she talked about how she focused her students on an eye for detail in their writing. Because of the constant editor’s marks she put an importance on her students to always be checking for clarification and elaboration of remarks. This is helpful and seems akin to the ‘felt sense’ that we had discussed from earlier that guides our writing and pushes us in the right direction.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I Am a Pencil by Sam Swope
Swope’s I Am a Pencil from the chapter “Poetry 101” on page108:
“I sometimes had the children memorize poems, and now I wish I’d done more of that. Nothing gets the beauty of a language into your bloodstream more than verses learned by heart. I selected poems that were strong on meter and rhyme, which children love and make a poem easier to memorize. It was fun selecting particular poems for particular kids: Poe’s “El Dorado” for Aaron; Durston’s “The Wolf” for Miguel…”
Writing poetry was something I would do with the entire class, saving prose for smaller groups. In a single period, I could give an assignment and the class would write at least one poem, often more. They were poems only in the loosest sense, the freest sort of verse, mostly unstructured and unrhymed. Unlike fiction, these poems gave the kids a way to express a complete thought quickly, and because they didn’t have to worry about grammar and punctuation, their minds were free to play with language and images in ways they never did in prose.”
This passage was particularly compelling for me because of it’s inclusion of many of the ideas we have been discussing concerning the various philosophies of teaching and arguments for and against certain methods. The fact that Mr. Swope brought out the positive aspects of both the traditional approach to poetry, that of memorization and copying, and the expressivist approach to poetry, that of creation and lack of formality, is very noteworthy for our purposes. By utilizing the positives of both philosophies he was able to teach this lesson effectively. The traditional approach can be monogamous and boring; however, he catered to each student by selecting individual poems that they would each appreciate. The reading of ‘great literature’ (or poems) gives the children an example to aspire to while the poetic nature of writing allows them to be unrestricted by the more formal rules of prose. Because the poetry allowed the students to complete their thoughts more quickly he was able to tap into the benefits of putting one’s ideas onto paper that the expressivist approach provides.
We have also been discussing how it is always good to give individual attention to students, but that it is sometimes difficult to manage the time that it takes to do so. I see Mr. Swope’s attempt to balance the group discussion on poetry and the individual poetry assignments as a way of meeting this end. He gives them their own poems, but brings them together to create them as a class and in this way reaches out to them on both levels of personal inquiry and efficient time management.
Analysis: “How does Mr. Swope do such an effective job of getting his students to write?”
--He always encourages them to express their interests first and foremost and often takes the opportunity to take other class topics and get them to write about it. Whether it’s a story about the crack in the floor with a small family watching TV or other interesting topics for young children they are always excited. From there he adds a personal touch to connect with the student and help them produce their thoughts. After that he just encourages them from behind allowing their imaginations to lead them. (One particular thought comes from Aaron’s writing on page 73-75.)
Evaluation: On page 61 Mr. Swope says that he encourages the students to write what they are dying to write about even if it wasn’t his assigned topic.
“How effective do you feel it is to encourage students to write what they want to rather than sticking to the given assignment?”
--I feel like this can be treading dangerous waters considering that there is a subject to be taught and learned and deviating too far from the task might not produce any knowledge. On the other hand getting the kids to write and be excited about it is important. With this in mind I feel that we should just be certain to nudge them down the lesson plan’s path with there assignment or try to spin their excitement in the direction of the assignment’s aim.
Application: “How would you collaborate with students to show them writing techniques at an elementary level?”
-- Not to steal Swope’s ideas, but to avoid reinventing the wheel I would definitely consider working with them one on one and transcribing their thoughts in front of them as they express their ideas. On page 41 Mr. Swope does this with Miguel and he effectively puts together the beginnings of a story without the setback of grammar and by watching Swope write he learns what quotation marks are and how they’re used. I would write for them to see and be sure to include one advanced writing/grammar tool for them to incorporate into their own writing. Little kids love to learn about tools adults use and for Miguel he loved the idea of quotation marks.
“I sometimes had the children memorize poems, and now I wish I’d done more of that. Nothing gets the beauty of a language into your bloodstream more than verses learned by heart. I selected poems that were strong on meter and rhyme, which children love and make a poem easier to memorize. It was fun selecting particular poems for particular kids: Poe’s “El Dorado” for Aaron; Durston’s “The Wolf” for Miguel…”
Writing poetry was something I would do with the entire class, saving prose for smaller groups. In a single period, I could give an assignment and the class would write at least one poem, often more. They were poems only in the loosest sense, the freest sort of verse, mostly unstructured and unrhymed. Unlike fiction, these poems gave the kids a way to express a complete thought quickly, and because they didn’t have to worry about grammar and punctuation, their minds were free to play with language and images in ways they never did in prose.”
This passage was particularly compelling for me because of it’s inclusion of many of the ideas we have been discussing concerning the various philosophies of teaching and arguments for and against certain methods. The fact that Mr. Swope brought out the positive aspects of both the traditional approach to poetry, that of memorization and copying, and the expressivist approach to poetry, that of creation and lack of formality, is very noteworthy for our purposes. By utilizing the positives of both philosophies he was able to teach this lesson effectively. The traditional approach can be monogamous and boring; however, he catered to each student by selecting individual poems that they would each appreciate. The reading of ‘great literature’ (or poems) gives the children an example to aspire to while the poetic nature of writing allows them to be unrestricted by the more formal rules of prose. Because the poetry allowed the students to complete their thoughts more quickly he was able to tap into the benefits of putting one’s ideas onto paper that the expressivist approach provides.
We have also been discussing how it is always good to give individual attention to students, but that it is sometimes difficult to manage the time that it takes to do so. I see Mr. Swope’s attempt to balance the group discussion on poetry and the individual poetry assignments as a way of meeting this end. He gives them their own poems, but brings them together to create them as a class and in this way reaches out to them on both levels of personal inquiry and efficient time management.
Analysis: “How does Mr. Swope do such an effective job of getting his students to write?”
--He always encourages them to express their interests first and foremost and often takes the opportunity to take other class topics and get them to write about it. Whether it’s a story about the crack in the floor with a small family watching TV or other interesting topics for young children they are always excited. From there he adds a personal touch to connect with the student and help them produce their thoughts. After that he just encourages them from behind allowing their imaginations to lead them. (One particular thought comes from Aaron’s writing on page 73-75.)
Evaluation: On page 61 Mr. Swope says that he encourages the students to write what they are dying to write about even if it wasn’t his assigned topic.
“How effective do you feel it is to encourage students to write what they want to rather than sticking to the given assignment?”
--I feel like this can be treading dangerous waters considering that there is a subject to be taught and learned and deviating too far from the task might not produce any knowledge. On the other hand getting the kids to write and be excited about it is important. With this in mind I feel that we should just be certain to nudge them down the lesson plan’s path with there assignment or try to spin their excitement in the direction of the assignment’s aim.
Application: “How would you collaborate with students to show them writing techniques at an elementary level?”
-- Not to steal Swope’s ideas, but to avoid reinventing the wheel I would definitely consider working with them one on one and transcribing their thoughts in front of them as they express their ideas. On page 41 Mr. Swope does this with Miguel and he effectively puts together the beginnings of a story without the setback of grammar and by watching Swope write he learns what quotation marks are and how they’re used. I would write for them to see and be sure to include one advanced writing/grammar tool for them to incorporate into their own writing. Little kids love to learn about tools adults use and for Miguel he loved the idea of quotation marks.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
WHY STUDY GRAMMAR?
One approach described to teaching grammar is the traditional approach that "uses as examples language from formal situations (considered 'the very best use of language') and applies many rules and categories from the study of Latin to the study of English" (p4). This approach is about how "language should be used". A second approach is structural grammar which focuses on the systems that guide the grammar of a language and focus on how "language is used and thus more descriptive." And a third approach is the transformational which "states that in every language user's mind are embedded the basic rules for producing and comprehending meaningful sentences in that language.
These three approaches, traditional, structural and transformational seem to reflect some of the sentiments from our theories/philosophies of teaching writing which might be helpful in considering their implementation in the classroom. The traditional approach seems closely related to the bottom-up technique that was common in early to mid 1900's practice of teaching writing in which process is important to properly informing writing skills. I feel this approach while necessary to establish basic tenets is forcing writers into a container or model that limits their creativity. While grammar might not be the best place for creativity to spawn the Post-Process folks might like to disagree a bit because of indeterminate meaning of speech in general. Perhaps breaking the grammar rules is the type of post process that this philosophy demands? I'm not sure.
These three approaches, traditional, structural and transformational seem to reflect some of the sentiments from our theories/philosophies of teaching writing which might be helpful in considering their implementation in the classroom. The traditional approach seems closely related to the bottom-up technique that was common in early to mid 1900's practice of teaching writing in which process is important to properly informing writing skills. I feel this approach while necessary to establish basic tenets is forcing writers into a container or model that limits their creativity. While grammar might not be the best place for creativity to spawn the Post-Process folks might like to disagree a bit because of indeterminate meaning of speech in general. Perhaps breaking the grammar rules is the type of post process that this philosophy demands? I'm not sure.
Monday, March 1, 2010
On ‘Blogs as a tool for Teaching’ by Steven D. Krause
Blog about it! I’m really having a difficult time warming up to this technology. I mean, my Microsoft Word document isn’t even recognizing the spelling of this word. That’s right, I’m typing into word so that I feel less like I’m blogging —blogging has that red squiggly line that crutches my spelling throughout any given essay. That’s another technology that has hindered my basic writing skills. But I digress.
I don’t want to be a cynic of technology because I know certain advances have significantly bettered society. As far as written composition, I’ve always been frustrated with grammar and punctuation. If it were not for Word’s compliment to a top-down learning approach to writing I probably would have given up on the task a long time ago. It has allowed me to put my thoughts on the screen and sort through them without being hung up on spelling.
As for Blogging, Krause notes three lessons that have shown him why this newer technology has failed in his classroom. First, the opportunity for technology isn’t always received well by students cautious of its use. I am one of these students, but Krause notes that his students complained about the vagueness of the task. I don’t feel this way about our classroom use, but his second point enlightened me—“to write in a blog takes a desire to reach an audience.” I can’t seem to find this audience and I think it is connected to his second finding that “blogs do not do a very good job of helping writers interact.” He found that email list and sources like blackboard are more discussion oriented because of the “threaded” format. I’ve used this before for an online class and while still turned off to internet I was more successful at producing a written piece and creating a discussion.
We discuss the readings in class and the blogs are intended to produce questions for this discussion, but personally I find my discussion ability better suited for spurred rather than planned dialogue. Basically, I want to want to blog, but I can’t even sell myself on the idea. I just feel self defeated by the thought of it…
So how do we sell this technology to the class? I’m not sure. How have others in this class adopted it so well?
A Denver University rendition of ‘The Office’ to their dealings with technology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6svk_R_rVhA
I don’t want to be a cynic of technology because I know certain advances have significantly bettered society. As far as written composition, I’ve always been frustrated with grammar and punctuation. If it were not for Word’s compliment to a top-down learning approach to writing I probably would have given up on the task a long time ago. It has allowed me to put my thoughts on the screen and sort through them without being hung up on spelling.
As for Blogging, Krause notes three lessons that have shown him why this newer technology has failed in his classroom. First, the opportunity for technology isn’t always received well by students cautious of its use. I am one of these students, but Krause notes that his students complained about the vagueness of the task. I don’t feel this way about our classroom use, but his second point enlightened me—“to write in a blog takes a desire to reach an audience.” I can’t seem to find this audience and I think it is connected to his second finding that “blogs do not do a very good job of helping writers interact.” He found that email list and sources like blackboard are more discussion oriented because of the “threaded” format. I’ve used this before for an online class and while still turned off to internet I was more successful at producing a written piece and creating a discussion.
We discuss the readings in class and the blogs are intended to produce questions for this discussion, but personally I find my discussion ability better suited for spurred rather than planned dialogue. Basically, I want to want to blog, but I can’t even sell myself on the idea. I just feel self defeated by the thought of it…
So how do we sell this technology to the class? I’m not sure. How have others in this class adopted it so well?
A Denver University rendition of ‘The Office’ to their dealings with technology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6svk_R_rVhA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)