Friday, June 12, 2009
Have A Good Summer!
The blog is going on hiatus for the summer. I'll see you in the fall, but I promise not to ask you to write a theme on what you did on your summer vacation!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Brown, David West. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-switching, and Academic Writing
Brown, David West. In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-switching, and Academic Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009.
Brown’s book is a collection of lesson plans about nonstandard and standard language patterns, including discussions of “like,” “ain’t,” zero copula, and habitual "be." Though many English teachers might accuse Brown of teaching “bad English,” his stated goal is “to help students develop greater facility with Standard English and to help them improve their academic writing” (xi). As Brown explains, “In trying to achieve that goal, the materials in this book approach students’ existing competence with and knowledge of language as a resource to be drawn upon rather than an obstacle to be overcome. If students can become more aware of the linguistic choices they already make, if their inchoate knowledge of English grammar can become more conscious and intentional, their emerging awareness can be applied to the kinds of choices and tasks called for in academic writing” (xi). Students who are speakers of nonstandard varieties of English may find the exercises in Brown’s book useful for adjusting to standard English. Though the book is likely directed at students before they arrive at college, college instructors may find the book a valuable resource for helping students having trouble with writing at the college level, which often isn’t because they use “bad grammar,” but because they have learned the grammar of a different system of English and are having trouble adjusting to the new rules of another system. For, as Brown notes, “Grammar is far more than a well-defined, ageless set of prescriptive rules. It is a complex intersection of linguistic systems and social expectations that is sometimes ambiguous and always changing” (xviii). Furthermore, in addition to discussing the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar (xvi), the odd and often arbitrary historical background of some grammatical rules (xvii), and language variation (xviii), Brown also provides a handy introduction to ideas of functional grammar, similar to those of M.A.K. Halliday. For example, Brown discusses extensively such syntactic arrangements as topic/comment (72), theme/rheme (72), and known/new (85). These ideas for analyzing and understanding sentence and paragraph organization and meaning making will be useful to students who already have a firm grasp on standard English, and instructors may find the entire book eye-opening in its approach to language instruction. We hope soon to have a copy of the book available in our writing instruction library in the Ursuline Studies office, but in the meantime it can be ordered through OhioLINK.
Brown’s book is a collection of lesson plans about nonstandard and standard language patterns, including discussions of “like,” “ain’t,” zero copula, and habitual "be." Though many English teachers might accuse Brown of teaching “bad English,” his stated goal is “to help students develop greater facility with Standard English and to help them improve their academic writing” (xi). As Brown explains, “In trying to achieve that goal, the materials in this book approach students’ existing competence with and knowledge of language as a resource to be drawn upon rather than an obstacle to be overcome. If students can become more aware of the linguistic choices they already make, if their inchoate knowledge of English grammar can become more conscious and intentional, their emerging awareness can be applied to the kinds of choices and tasks called for in academic writing” (xi). Students who are speakers of nonstandard varieties of English may find the exercises in Brown’s book useful for adjusting to standard English. Though the book is likely directed at students before they arrive at college, college instructors may find the book a valuable resource for helping students having trouble with writing at the college level, which often isn’t because they use “bad grammar,” but because they have learned the grammar of a different system of English and are having trouble adjusting to the new rules of another system. For, as Brown notes, “Grammar is far more than a well-defined, ageless set of prescriptive rules. It is a complex intersection of linguistic systems and social expectations that is sometimes ambiguous and always changing” (xviii). Furthermore, in addition to discussing the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar (xvi), the odd and often arbitrary historical background of some grammatical rules (xvii), and language variation (xviii), Brown also provides a handy introduction to ideas of functional grammar, similar to those of M.A.K. Halliday. For example, Brown discusses extensively such syntactic arrangements as topic/comment (72), theme/rheme (72), and known/new (85). These ideas for analyzing and understanding sentence and paragraph organization and meaning making will be useful to students who already have a firm grasp on standard English, and instructors may find the entire book eye-opening in its approach to language instruction. We hope soon to have a copy of the book available in our writing instruction library in the Ursuline Studies office, but in the meantime it can be ordered through OhioLINK.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Cummings, Robert E. Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
Cummings, Robert E. Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009.
While many instructors still deplore the use of Wikipedia by students (because such use often leads to overreliance on it as a source which in turn often leads to plagiarism and sloppy research in student writing), Robert E. Cummings has found a way to use “the free encyclopedia” to improve student writing. In his book Lazy Virtues, Cummings argues that using Wikipedia, and wikis (electronic documents open to modification by various users) in general, can provide students with a sharp sense of audience in the rhetorical sense, which can inspire greater care in their writing overall. As he points out, “Once writers care about making the audience understand something important, they are invested in spelling, punctuation, and style. Writing on wikis provided my students with that audience trigger” (9). Much of the book concerns various historical and theoretical discussions of computer programming, economics, and literacy, which are interesting, but the most essential portions of the book for our purposes are the more prosaic sections in which Cummings discusses how he utilized wikis in his writing assignments. The sample assignment described in the second chapter concerned students creating and editing Wikipedia entries on various films, but it could easily be adapted to other subjects. Though most of the book concerns how to use what Cummings calls a “Commons-Based Peer Production” (CBPP) approach to writing in the classroom, he also offers other useful advice for writing instruction such as his discussion of portfolios, which he claims “have the advantage of encouraging student reflection about the value of what they have learned in the class and how the course has impacted their development. This encourages quicker transference: students who leave a portfolio class are more aware of the skills they have acquired and are more likely to use them sooner” (98). Ultimately, Cummings found using the CBPP approach to writing assignments useful since students received almost instant feedback from other users who would not hesitate to delete or modify contributions to the entries that they found not relevant. He writes, “The CBPP composition experience thrusts upon writers the full weight of making meaning for a discourse community and ultimately calls upon them to employ sound techniques of persuasion to defend their contributions” (141). Students also seemed to respond positively to the CBPP assignments as well, though Cummings cautions that a gradual approach to using them is best since some students may be resistant to such an assignment (122). At the very least though, such an assignment will likely encourage students to think twice before they instinctively turn to Wikipedia for information! The book is available through OhioLINK.
While many instructors still deplore the use of Wikipedia by students (because such use often leads to overreliance on it as a source which in turn often leads to plagiarism and sloppy research in student writing), Robert E. Cummings has found a way to use “the free encyclopedia” to improve student writing. In his book Lazy Virtues, Cummings argues that using Wikipedia, and wikis (electronic documents open to modification by various users) in general, can provide students with a sharp sense of audience in the rhetorical sense, which can inspire greater care in their writing overall. As he points out, “Once writers care about making the audience understand something important, they are invested in spelling, punctuation, and style. Writing on wikis provided my students with that audience trigger” (9). Much of the book concerns various historical and theoretical discussions of computer programming, economics, and literacy, which are interesting, but the most essential portions of the book for our purposes are the more prosaic sections in which Cummings discusses how he utilized wikis in his writing assignments. The sample assignment described in the second chapter concerned students creating and editing Wikipedia entries on various films, but it could easily be adapted to other subjects. Though most of the book concerns how to use what Cummings calls a “Commons-Based Peer Production” (CBPP) approach to writing in the classroom, he also offers other useful advice for writing instruction such as his discussion of portfolios, which he claims “have the advantage of encouraging student reflection about the value of what they have learned in the class and how the course has impacted their development. This encourages quicker transference: students who leave a portfolio class are more aware of the skills they have acquired and are more likely to use them sooner” (98). Ultimately, Cummings found using the CBPP approach to writing assignments useful since students received almost instant feedback from other users who would not hesitate to delete or modify contributions to the entries that they found not relevant. He writes, “The CBPP composition experience thrusts upon writers the full weight of making meaning for a discourse community and ultimately calls upon them to employ sound techniques of persuasion to defend their contributions” (141). Students also seemed to respond positively to the CBPP assignments as well, though Cummings cautions that a gradual approach to using them is best since some students may be resistant to such an assignment (122). At the very least though, such an assignment will likely encourage students to think twice before they instinctively turn to Wikipedia for information! The book is available through OhioLINK.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Gardner, Traci. Designing Writing Assignments
Gardner, Traci. Designing Writing Assignments. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2008.
This slim volume offers numerous examples of effective writing assignments, but is probably most useful for the overview of how to design writing assignments in the beginning and the underlying teaching philosophy listed in the appendix at the end (“[National Council of Teachers of English] Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing”). Though appropriate for pre-college instructors as well, for college instructors, the book offers useful advice such as: Provide more information about writing assignments to students (as that generally results in better student writing) (1-2), put the assignment in writing so students have something to refer back to beyond their class notes of your discussion of the assignment in class (3), and don’t raise issues of grammar too early as that can short circuit student writing “by shifting attention away from exploring and focusing on the message” (21). The book is available through OhioLINK.
This slim volume offers numerous examples of effective writing assignments, but is probably most useful for the overview of how to design writing assignments in the beginning and the underlying teaching philosophy listed in the appendix at the end (“[National Council of Teachers of English] Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing”). Though appropriate for pre-college instructors as well, for college instructors, the book offers useful advice such as: Provide more information about writing assignments to students (as that generally results in better student writing) (1-2), put the assignment in writing so students have something to refer back to beyond their class notes of your discussion of the assignment in class (3), and don’t raise issues of grammar too early as that can short circuit student writing “by shifting attention away from exploring and focusing on the message” (21). The book is available through OhioLINK.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Beaufort, Anne. College Writing and Beyond
Beaufort, Anne. College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2007.
Beaufort describes an undergraduate’s experiences with writing by tracing his progress from freshman English to courses in his majors of engineering and history, and, finally, to his experiences in an engineering workplace after graduation. She notes the difficulty the undergraduate often had in transferring the skills he had learned in his writing courses to his writing in his majors and in the workplace, and, based upon that evidence, argues that university writing instruction could be improved by calling greater attention to the roles discourse communities and genres play in defining expectations for writing. She identifies five knowledge domains in writing experience--discourse community knowledge, subject matter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing process knowledge--and suggests that if greater attention were paid to their inner-workings then students would be able more easily to transfer skills from one course to another and from school to work and life situations. She writes, “I would argue that we are looking to teach not similarities in the ways writing is done in different contexts, but rather, to teach those broad concepts (discourse community, genre, rhetorical tools, etc.) which will give writers the tools to analyze similarities and differences among writing situations they encounter” (149). Since we don’t teach composition per se at Ursuline and much of the writing in Ursuline Studies is already sequenced as she recommends (related but increasingly more complex writing tasks across the undergraduate years), most useful for us is Beaufort's point that instructors can better prepare students for future writing by calling attention to the contexts in which the writing takes place. What she notes of genre holds true of the other knowledge domains she identifies, “We cannot possibly teach all genres students might need to know in the future, but we can teach the concept of genre and ask students to apply the concept to analysis of several text types” (152). This emphasis on how texts get produced in various contexts and for various purposes may indeed help students to more easily navigate new areas and the texts they will be expected to produce therein. Along those lines, asking students to focus on their own composing practices and experiences in a form of meta-cognition (182) may also help them to transfer and build on previous skills. Beaufort also provides a snappy answer to the oft-asked “Why can’t graduates of freshman writing produce acceptable written documents?”: “In part, because each context requires specialized ‘local’ know-how. And in part, because we have not yet become experts at teaching for transfer” (158). We can’t expect to become experts at “teaching for transfer” overnight, but if we can call students’ attention to how what they’ve learned might relate to future experiences--in the major, in their other courses, and in life off-campus--then that would be a nice start. The book is available through OhioLINK.
Beaufort describes an undergraduate’s experiences with writing by tracing his progress from freshman English to courses in his majors of engineering and history, and, finally, to his experiences in an engineering workplace after graduation. She notes the difficulty the undergraduate often had in transferring the skills he had learned in his writing courses to his writing in his majors and in the workplace, and, based upon that evidence, argues that university writing instruction could be improved by calling greater attention to the roles discourse communities and genres play in defining expectations for writing. She identifies five knowledge domains in writing experience--discourse community knowledge, subject matter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing process knowledge--and suggests that if greater attention were paid to their inner-workings then students would be able more easily to transfer skills from one course to another and from school to work and life situations. She writes, “I would argue that we are looking to teach not similarities in the ways writing is done in different contexts, but rather, to teach those broad concepts (discourse community, genre, rhetorical tools, etc.) which will give writers the tools to analyze similarities and differences among writing situations they encounter” (149). Since we don’t teach composition per se at Ursuline and much of the writing in Ursuline Studies is already sequenced as she recommends (related but increasingly more complex writing tasks across the undergraduate years), most useful for us is Beaufort's point that instructors can better prepare students for future writing by calling attention to the contexts in which the writing takes place. What she notes of genre holds true of the other knowledge domains she identifies, “We cannot possibly teach all genres students might need to know in the future, but we can teach the concept of genre and ask students to apply the concept to analysis of several text types” (152). This emphasis on how texts get produced in various contexts and for various purposes may indeed help students to more easily navigate new areas and the texts they will be expected to produce therein. Along those lines, asking students to focus on their own composing practices and experiences in a form of meta-cognition (182) may also help them to transfer and build on previous skills. Beaufort also provides a snappy answer to the oft-asked “Why can’t graduates of freshman writing produce acceptable written documents?”: “In part, because each context requires specialized ‘local’ know-how. And in part, because we have not yet become experts at teaching for transfer” (158). We can’t expect to become experts at “teaching for transfer” overnight, but if we can call students’ attention to how what they’ve learned might relate to future experiences--in the major, in their other courses, and in life off-campus--then that would be a nice start. The book is available through OhioLINK.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Segall and Smart Revisited
Segall, Mary T., and Robert A. Smart, eds. Direct from the Disciplines: Writing across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005.
We finish our multiple-post discussion of Segall and Smart with a potpourri of the writing instruction wisdom that abounds in the book. Susan R. Dailey notes that “uninspired writing prompts produced uninspired writing” so she revised her assignments until students produced the kind of quality writing she desired (68). Similarly, Pattie Belle Hastings and Valerie Smith experimented with having students write blogs, and found the results worthwhile (76). Sean P. Duffy found that short linked writing assignments and other pedagogical retoolings enabled him to summon “better writing out of [his] students” (122). Teachers weren’t the only ones pleased with the results of these techniques. According to Suzanne S. Hudd, students as well seemed to find writing multiple drafts of a paper valuable for improving their writing (135). Cornelius Nelan notes that instructors should grade writing differently, depending on the goals of the assignment (148). If the goal is for the student to learn or apply a concept, then concentrate on how well the student has accomplished that, and not on other features such as adhering to the conventions of standard academic English. On the other hand, if an assignment is what educational theorist James Britton calls “transactional” (158), meaning the focus is on communication between writer and reader, then more attention should be paid to this goal and accordingly to deficiencies in surface correction that might mar this process. Describing writing tutoring at Quinnipiac, Andrew Delohery points out a useful concept by asking instructors to distinguish between “HOTs” and “LOTs”: “HOTs--higher-order-things--correspond to the elements one might recognize as deep revision. Here, tutors attempt to focus their clients on issues of idea development, coherence, cohesion, organization--many of the tasks require more metacognition, which is definitely not the expectation of clients who use tutoring ‘to have their papers proofread.’ Initially, the clients, and often, their faculty, default to our tutors to provide the LOTs--lower-order-things--such as punctuation, grammar, and the like before their ideas have come to fruition or have been adequately developed” (162). As Delohery points out, there isn’t much sense in proofing a paper that needs more development in its ideas; it would be like painting a car that lacks an engine, even if it looks pretty, the car (or the paper) isn’t going anywhere. Delohery further suggests that instructors must make “sure not to overload papers with comments about surface-level errors and, thus, [create] the impression that more serious concerns are no more serious than a dropped comma or a misplaced modifier” (166). So, if a student doesn’t offer any support for her or his argument, focus on that aspect of the paper first and then deal with the comma splices later. Finally, as Smart and Segall, the editors, note, drawing on the research of Richard Light, writing is worth the trouble because more than any other factor, the amount of writing in a course matches the level of engagement by the students. And, student engagement usually equals learning, which is why we're here in the first place.
We finish our multiple-post discussion of Segall and Smart with a potpourri of the writing instruction wisdom that abounds in the book. Susan R. Dailey notes that “uninspired writing prompts produced uninspired writing” so she revised her assignments until students produced the kind of quality writing she desired (68). Similarly, Pattie Belle Hastings and Valerie Smith experimented with having students write blogs, and found the results worthwhile (76). Sean P. Duffy found that short linked writing assignments and other pedagogical retoolings enabled him to summon “better writing out of [his] students” (122). Teachers weren’t the only ones pleased with the results of these techniques. According to Suzanne S. Hudd, students as well seemed to find writing multiple drafts of a paper valuable for improving their writing (135). Cornelius Nelan notes that instructors should grade writing differently, depending on the goals of the assignment (148). If the goal is for the student to learn or apply a concept, then concentrate on how well the student has accomplished that, and not on other features such as adhering to the conventions of standard academic English. On the other hand, if an assignment is what educational theorist James Britton calls “transactional” (158), meaning the focus is on communication between writer and reader, then more attention should be paid to this goal and accordingly to deficiencies in surface correction that might mar this process. Describing writing tutoring at Quinnipiac, Andrew Delohery points out a useful concept by asking instructors to distinguish between “HOTs” and “LOTs”: “HOTs--higher-order-things--correspond to the elements one might recognize as deep revision. Here, tutors attempt to focus their clients on issues of idea development, coherence, cohesion, organization--many of the tasks require more metacognition, which is definitely not the expectation of clients who use tutoring ‘to have their papers proofread.’ Initially, the clients, and often, their faculty, default to our tutors to provide the LOTs--lower-order-things--such as punctuation, grammar, and the like before their ideas have come to fruition or have been adequately developed” (162). As Delohery points out, there isn’t much sense in proofing a paper that needs more development in its ideas; it would be like painting a car that lacks an engine, even if it looks pretty, the car (or the paper) isn’t going anywhere. Delohery further suggests that instructors must make “sure not to overload papers with comments about surface-level errors and, thus, [create] the impression that more serious concerns are no more serious than a dropped comma or a misplaced modifier” (166). So, if a student doesn’t offer any support for her or his argument, focus on that aspect of the paper first and then deal with the comma splices later. Finally, as Smart and Segall, the editors, note, drawing on the research of Richard Light, writing is worth the trouble because more than any other factor, the amount of writing in a course matches the level of engagement by the students. And, student engagement usually equals learning, which is why we're here in the first place.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Walbaum, Shar. "A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC”
Walbaum, Shar. "A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC.” Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 137-44.
In “A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC,” Shar Walbaum explains how commenting less on a student paper may actually be more beneficial than filling up a page of student writing with red ink (or ink of any color): “I learned that less is more: my old editing habits were very likely overloading students with too many details. As a consequence, my feedback was probably being ignored. this is just what Jean Piaget, the eminent theorist of cognitive development, would have predicted (Piaget 1972). If we have no way of making sense of new stimuli, we resolve the resulting cognitive disequilibrium by just filtering them out. For example, if I overheard a conversation between a Peruvian couple, I would be in a similar position. Although I know a little Spanish, when it is spoken colloquially, I experience information overload and simply stop listening. This is an adaptive response. If someone wants me to understand something that is being said in Spanish, he or she must speak clearly and simply (presenting me with a moderate amount of cognitive challenge). Similarly, if I want a student to understand what I am saying about his or her writing, I must express it clearly and simply. In other words, cognitive development is possible only when new information is moderately disequilibrating. (Of course, as a cognitivist, I was kicking myself for not figuring out this rule sooner.) During my three years at Mount Holyoke, I learned to ‘zoom out’ as I was reading student work and to look for patterns, whether in terms of micro or macro structure or content” (138). Walbaum also found that writing could be useful even in subjects not typically identified with it such as math (139). Walbaum argues that this is because “When we integrate writing into college courses, we provide scaffolding for young adults’ intellectual development” (143), enabling them to reach their potential by providing appropriate challenges that can spur further development.
In “A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC,” Shar Walbaum explains how commenting less on a student paper may actually be more beneficial than filling up a page of student writing with red ink (or ink of any color): “I learned that less is more: my old editing habits were very likely overloading students with too many details. As a consequence, my feedback was probably being ignored. this is just what Jean Piaget, the eminent theorist of cognitive development, would have predicted (Piaget 1972). If we have no way of making sense of new stimuli, we resolve the resulting cognitive disequilibrium by just filtering them out. For example, if I overheard a conversation between a Peruvian couple, I would be in a similar position. Although I know a little Spanish, when it is spoken colloquially, I experience information overload and simply stop listening. This is an adaptive response. If someone wants me to understand something that is being said in Spanish, he or she must speak clearly and simply (presenting me with a moderate amount of cognitive challenge). Similarly, if I want a student to understand what I am saying about his or her writing, I must express it clearly and simply. In other words, cognitive development is possible only when new information is moderately disequilibrating. (Of course, as a cognitivist, I was kicking myself for not figuring out this rule sooner.) During my three years at Mount Holyoke, I learned to ‘zoom out’ as I was reading student work and to look for patterns, whether in terms of micro or macro structure or content” (138). Walbaum also found that writing could be useful even in subjects not typically identified with it such as math (139). Walbaum argues that this is because “When we integrate writing into college courses, we provide scaffolding for young adults’ intellectual development” (143), enabling them to reach their potential by providing appropriate challenges that can spur further development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)