Trochaic Heptameter - Debbie

Writing is the key to learning and is also playful!

Students learn writing globally

KS: Talk about writing. This is something that we do without thinking when conferencing with our students. We do it because we want interaction with our students. The talk helps transfer what the student is thinking about doing and consequently putting on paper. It’s a no-brainer. Freedman and Katz tell us that the discourse “becomes part of the writing process itself.” This part of the writing process is an obvious element. I conference with students because it makes sense to me. Dialogue is the natural connection between student and teacher. Their “normal everyday conversation” is not so normal. As Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson argue, the students define what is normal and if the teacher can not interpret what is deemed normal with the students, the dialogue is lost and the connection between the talk and composition is lost. Depending on the day and mood of the students, the tripartite conveyed to the students by the teacher can be lost by the direction the students take it. The analyzing of conversation, exchange of information and even the ethnography is an interesting combination of factors that I normally don’t connect with composition. The pragmatic theory makes sense since it’s the interpretation between student, teacher and composition that needs to be understood to make good reading. Any one can talk and project thoughts, but it’s the art of composition that should be cherished as good rather than the “abstract, artificial and bad connotation that it can be identified as having as its discourse.
LA is again deep and investigative. The idea of research is intriguing, but the deep qualitative research and experiments described in LA are less than inviting. I’m so jealous of those of you who know what they’re getting at because I read as though I’ll never figure out which experiment will work when and why.

Dear Teacher...

After getting past the academia jargon in the first few pages, I found the rest of the piece very interesting. The premise of reading an article based on basic writers was captivating from a teacher’s point of view. I was predicting how Brodkey would ascertain the discourse of basic writing. The basic question she posed on pg. 126 was “how to read what students write.” “Should teachers concentrate on form at the expense of content?” I have fought this contention for a long time. From the days in high school where Mr. Stahler would get out his red pen and rip apart my piece for what syntax he would prefer rather than look at the content would drive me crazy. It was as bad as my mother correcting my grammar as a child. Unfortunately, I do that with my students but never the red pen. At the 8th grade level, I want them to write better, but not at the expense of taking out the enthusiasm of writing. That’s how I felt when reading the “stories” of Don/Dora, Ellen/Pat and Rita/Esther. Instead of “Literacy Letters”, this should have been a study of ethnography and class distinction. The teachers in this scenario were placed on a economic scale that would deter the “students” from being comfortable in their own place. As I read this, I contemplated the question, “Why do teachers want to place themselves on a pedestal and not relinquish the power to the students?” Brodkey appears to see that point during the study, but never acknowledges that this division between the two groups is the problem with the “Literacy Letters.” Even the most confident writer Pat loses her confidence during the letter writing. The familiarity between the women was squashed when Ellen discusses her Mother’s Day plans. Brodkey states, “middle-class families do not ordinarily celebrate motherhood with consumption rituals.” With this statement, doesn’t Brodkey establish an economic difference between the women, thus enabling Ellen as the superior subject in the study? The studies relates more information to me about how a teacher needs teach basic writing based on a relationship with her students rather than the authority to empower her students. As Brodkey says, “To say no to writing is to say no to a difference that matter to those students…”

Then there is Lauer and Asher…ugh! I’m sorry, but my mind doesn’t work this way. I look at titles “Problems with subjects,” and I want to know how I can help them, not figure out the n to k ratio. I’m the person who can’t even use a calculator never mind reducing it to 5:1. It’s good to see that colleges and other institutions actually have some kind of mathematical formula to allow students into college classes based on their success on pre-testing. But of course, I look at the fact that student’s mature considerable from high school to college and the determination to succeed and get out of small towns out-weigh any test that can be given and classified.

I'd rather be reading on the "Beach"

Controlling behavior is not allowing the freedom of writing. Give them the supportive environment to write then ethnography allows the researcher to delve into what the research will back. So many ideas with even more variables to decipher seem to be the discrepancy between the two authors. In both selections, the question to consider is what is better? The empirical research gives numbers to support what the hypothesis is predicating and yet the ethnography mirrors the humanistic approach to research. As writers, we have the liberal arts mentality while the researchers love the numbers and statistics. Somewhere, both the two shall meet and create exciting revelations. Empirical research has its place in composition as long as it helps the student be better instructed by the teacher. When reading Beach, I keep thinking about my students and the art of writing. Do I teach students to love writing and correct grammar and syntax last or go right for the 5-paragraph essay? This is why most English teachers teach the dreaded 5-paragraph essay. It’s not that the 5 paragraph essay is wrong, but it’s the only method of writing that most teachers remember from high school. Pamela Eckert’s observation in the Detroit School District centralized itself with ethnographic study. She used the two years of her study to find that the world around the students created their writing style. Their writing was influence by social categories. Eckert’s observations demonstrated this by the writing samples. Both groups of students wrote the way their group spoke and contemplated. Students write what they know. I’m not so sure empirical research always gives the best view point of what is needed to know in writing, but it does emphasis what lies beneath the writing. Eckert needed specific information and using empirical research she found out what she needed to know about syntax between the two groups. At those times, empirical is the research that must be executed. One should not be preoccupied with the x’s and y’s (even though it scares the ##### out of me!) but knowing that the findings will help us be better at what we are doing.

My Confidence Limit is 9.8%

The reason I chose Communications as my first degree was because I had a difficult time with Math for Elementary Teachers. From that point on, I made a conscious effort to use math for as little as possible. I can find the percentage off when it comes to a sale, but that’s about it. So this chapter from LA was excruciating for me. The idea of surveys, questionnaires and even samples was interesting. When someone needs a survey filled out, I’m the go to girl. But deciphering the means, standard deviations or even data questions were quite the challenge. It actually gave me a lot of respect for those who determine what kind of sample they need to gather in order for the survey to have relevance and self-reliance. The type of data needed, samples, and even construction was interesting. I kept thinking about this past week PSSA Writing Test and how they can take these samples to make judgments on what is occurring in all 501 school districts in Pennsylvania. I just wonder what their confidence limits were for this test. Then I read Kirsch. What an interesting topic. Methodological pluralism equates to the IEP of all IEP’s. The way a writer achieves a writing style is internal as well as taught. Has the teacher provided guidance and interpretation, or are they dictating how they want it to be? In the readings from Kirsch, I see where all the discussions begin with experts of writing and the researchers trying to figure out the theory. When it comes to the classroom, aren’t there other factors that restrain the teacher from using the findings of these theorist like Flynn? In Flynn’s thoughts from Composing as a Woman, she reflects on a new approach looking at theory and research methods. But my question is, what training does the average English teacher in high school have that will concur or contradict what the researchers are finding when it comes to teaching composition? In Kirsch, we’re debating if a single methodology is adequate or do different methodologies produce conflict. If we’re going to produce better writers in secondary schools, shouldn’t these methods be used? The students differ just like the methods. Then why are we still teaching the 5-paragraph essay as “the” way of writing and changing sentence structure just because we like to use our red pens? According to Kirsch “To set such limitations early in the development of a growing discipline would be premature;” (pg. 253) then why do we set limitations with our students when they are trying a new approach with their composition?

Connecting the dots

“The researcher didn’t write the study, the method did.” That one sentence by Newkirk was a relief to me. The idea of composition and doing it well and then adding what appeared as surmountable research bogged my mind. I have to become a researcher and not a teacher of writing. My interpretation is that the narrative writing moves the research from totally scientific to a piece that takes the case study and turns it into a shaped composition of their accounts. Now that is interesting. It takes reality, picks it apart, and composes it into a study that will assist others to understand the why’s and wherefores of students and people alike. (Yes, students are not always people!)

Surprising, the one study of Atwell actually intrigued my interest. I haven’t been a fan of Atwell, but her discussion of the “Mislabeled” from “In the Middle” was so true. Taking a group of special education students and knowing that with modifications and adaptations, the students can learn. More than even that, by believing in them while encouraging them to succeed can often make the difference. Once reading this piece and then the chapter in Empirical Designs I can see how the difficulty is not only in finding the right piece to research, but taking the scientific method and writing a composition that is narrative. The hypotheses, variables and connections needed to put a well defined case study together takes more toil than it first appeared ~ it takes bias and personal input. Again, another week figuring out where I need to go and hopefully, it’ll become even clearer this week!

The 'Click' Experience

In reading the article on Observational Techniques, I find that perhaps we are being drawn in so closely to the methods of Lofland et al that the verisimilitude of the article draws us to a convincing outcome that observations are accurate and plausible. Each method and critique appears credible and without disparity causing the neophyte to jot down every word and method as to not make any errors. The criticisms discussed shows how observations can have errors in the case of validity. It’s like an advertisment on Super Bowl Sunday wanting us to purchase Diet Pepsi because of its new logo. The soda is the same, but the observation of the ads and logo can suggest that it’s fresh and innovative.

But as the article progressed, the idea of how the observation should develop and the strategies became more apparent and interesting. Where at first I thought the observers were manipulating the observation, I now see where the technique and style of the procedure resulted in the compilation of facts. The idea of overt and covert seemed simple once it was put into context. After reading the article, I realized this is something we all do everyday in our jobs. If we didn’t observe our students behavior, we wouldn’t be able to assist the struggling student with worthwhile strategies. Being a part of the environment or simply watching depends on the project. Once again I struggle with my observation project. Approaching week number three, I will probably reconfigure what should be my research project. The idea of a dramaturgical perspective project intrigues me since middle school children have so many dramatic episodes in their day that helping to figure out why could help in their daily academic experience. The idea of observing interaction with ethnomethodology coincides with the teaching profession. If teachers and others in the human development areas used the observation methods discussed, there could be more successes in the classroom and less frustrations. Instead of teachers glorifying in the teachable “a-ha!” moment, we’ll be like Carol Brooks Gardner and “look for the ‘Click’ experience!”

First try at this!

The complexity of what we need in teaching composition is often the realm in which we search. The constant questions of student’s inability or questioning the theory reasons beckons us to search for the answers in order to teach. The readings for this week mesh together as one, even though they present each other in various viewpoints. Personally, Alverez spoke to me as a teacher who struggles to be the best teacher I can be. I’m not burned out as she became, but I strive to wonder why students behave the way they do and what I can do to make their learning experiences more enjoyable and worthwhile. Alverez states, “Each teacher has to see research as questions related to their practice, which will ultimately improve the material conditions and intellectual conditions surrounding teaching.” The steps she provides for the teacher-research project are concrete and tangible. The format is something workable that I can see using to better my classroom teaching. But to understand why we do this, the KS reading became more relevant.

At first I pondered as I read “never question whether the relationship between theory and practice might itself warrant scrutiny…” When it comes to composition, I never put the idea of theory and practice as significant. Wasn’t theory and practice for scientist and mathematicians? But after reading North, I finally connect how a teacher of composition can utilize the practice they do in the classroom and relate it to a theory to find out the whys and wherefores of the piece or instruction. Making what we do pertinent is necessary for the respect of the subject matter. Up until this point, I wrote and taught writing. Now, I can see from this reading, it’s much more than a “knack.” It is an art that can be taught like strokes of a brush.

Now the LA reading bonds what Alverez was doing in the classroom to make the teaching experience for her students more worthwhile and using the foundations that KS discusses in the chapter concerning theory and practice. “The Empirical research is the process of developing systematic knowledge gained from observations…” This one definition in the introduction summed up the concept of observations and how they help the study of composition. The observations that Alverez used to figure out what was needed in her teaching were designed by the theory of LA. Hopefully by the end of this course, I can utilize the format and become better at what I do!