Title Ideas

I just spent some time looking over the group project and have been thinking about titles again. Why are titles so hard? Anyway...here are a few ideas:

• Writing Revelations
• The Evolution of Words

Yancey and Selfe

I can't believe this is our last blog! Time sure does fly. Thanks for a great semester everyone.

As I read both of the pieces this week, one main theme stood out to me: the need to incorporate multi-modalities within the traditional composition classroom. 

Although Selfe focuses on aurality and Yancey discusses technologies in general, both women share the concern that the look and feel of a composition classroom, its students, and methods of teaching how to write and what constitutes as writing, needs to be addressed. There are many questions surrounding the definition of writing as we move forward.

Another similarity both articles address is that the use of traditional writing combined with the inclusion of multimedia, can enhance the message and creativity of compositions. Selfe demonstrated this with the examples she included (I read this article a while back for another class and was able to check out her links-some very impressive work), and Yancey with her sidebar explanations of how she enhanced her own speech with visuals and lighting. Both again, share the belief that teaching writing in this manner has the ability to reach out to populations of students who normally struggle or do not do well in composition classes. 

As with any new shifts in education, there are complications. Teacher training, or lack there of, is a main concern. How do teachers learn about all of these wonderful tools at their fingertips? Training needs to be provided for them, and it often is not. Therefore, many students do not gain or benefit from the use of working with multi modalities. In addition, there may be time constraints due to curriculum guidelines. Yancey calls for curriculum reform. This would allow for jam-packed curricula to be updated to allow for new writing opportunities.

As I read these articles, I couldn't help thinking about our own class and the pieces that we are constructing for our final project. This project is coming to life with the use of technology, aurality, many types of visuals, and written text. I think we provide a great model for the points Yancey and Selfe are addressing.

Why the Research Paper is not Working- Fister  and The Popularity of Formulaic Writing- Wiley

I enjoyed reading two very interesting articles this week. First, Fister clearly tries to make a case as to why we should abandon the research paper. Her points being: that there is a messiness with citation rules, that students do a great job finding sources but do not know how to evaluate those sources, that students simply "skim the surface" when looking for valuable support for their topic, and that it strips away original thought as students often abandon good topics because sources to substantiate their points are limited. All of her reasons feel true, yet I still find value in the work behind creating a research paper. I think it teaches kids to understand the importance of supporting their thoughts and arguments. It also shows the importance of searching for scholars and experts who can "back you up." The problem with "skimming the surface" sounds to me like laziness. Students need to be taught that they have to actually read sources fully and evaluate the information presented within the text.

Years ago, my school taught the research paper. We began with the "mini-paper" in sixth grade. This is where they were introduced to research and the process. Then in seventh grade they completed their first paper through an interdisciplinary collaboration between language arts and social studies. And by eighth grade they were to choose their own topics and fly on their own. I even helped create our Research Style Guide during summer PD. I felt that this was an important process and really helped the students for their entrance into high school. However, with Common Core take over, the research paper has been abandoned in our middle school language arts curriculum. I felt that teaching students of a younger age how to begin this process was beneficial and set them up for success when they reached higher grades.


Formulaic writing...I will admit as a sixth grade teacher that I am guilty of teaching my students the five-paragraph essay "formula." When coming over from the elementary schools, they often have never written formal essays before, or if they did they come with limited knowledge. However, within this "formula" my students are not taught to count sentences and I am not looking for proper ratios! They may be taught where a thesis sentence goes and that you begin with topic sentences, but what goes into those paragraphs are their ideas. They make decisions about what they are saying and how to say it. Needless to say, I was blown away by the Schaffer Model and it's formula that strips away true writing. I also couldn't believe that the article states that this model was designed for ninth and tenth graders! By the time kids reach those grades they should be long gone from following formulas.

Now I know that there are many struggling writers who need more support with organization, and a formula can often benefit those students. However, one size does not fit all. Are we supposed to teach this formula to our advanced students? Such a structure would hold them back. I like how Wiley states that we should use our formulaic writing ideas as strategies not as a structure.

He states that what is easy fro teachers is not necessarily good fro the students. This is so true.

The Concept of Control in Teacher Responses: Straub and Looking Back as We Look Forward: Yancey

Straub's article deals with the important topic of teacher's comments on student's writing pieces. He stresses the importance that these comments have on the writer and how teachers need to be thoughtful and careful about their approaches. The goal is to ultimately have students develop their pieces and stand up and take responsibility for what they create. Too often, teacher comments are too controlling and judgmental. He emphasizes the point that writing instructors need to evaluate their commenting style and determine what and how they comment. There are many ways of looking at a piece, and many approaches to making commentary. It is sometimes difficult, but there should be a resistance to taking over control of the paper by guiding or instructing specific changes. The teacher should try to instill a feeling of collaborator.

Straub analyzes five different teacher comments on a paper and found many different methods used. He found teachers who focused solely on surface changes such as grammar and sentence structure, others who did not ask questions about the content but rather lead the student to make certain changes, and finally others who were less judgmental and provided comments that allowed the student to think about certain content driven points where she will be able to decide whether to make changes or not. He also shared an example from Peter Elbow where Elbow provides more of a summary of what he experienced as a reader. Elbow's comments felt very genuine and authentic.

We have discussed this topic at length during our semester and I feel that it is an important issue. Through the personal stories shared, we have heard that there have been those of us in class, who felt helped by strong commentary from teachers and those of us who have felt frustrated. There is  a lot of talk in education right now about the importance of feedback. I can only hope that it is important enough to provide some training or at least perhaps in house focus during school meetings. As always, things won't change unless we first acknowledge and second educate to strength or better the issue.

Yancey's piece this week was very similar to last week's reading of hers. It once again, looked back at the progression of the use of assessment in composition studies in higher education. I did enjoy this article more as she explained how the three waves overlapped and built upon one another. She shows the need for movement in this area and how the old methods of assessment become stagnant or how they simply didn't fit the dynamics of newer populations entering college.

The transition from multiple choice tests that focused on vocabulary and grammar skills in the 1950s to a portfolio assessment used today shows how compositional studies has come leaps and bounds over the years. The progression of how students are assessed highlights the value that there is on the content of writing over the correctness of grammar only. It also focuses on how instructors have become experts in the field.

As I stated last week, I'm sure that Yancey is happy with the progression that has been made thus far. However, where are we headed from here?

Using Rubrics to Apply Grading Criteria: Bean & Writing Assessment in the Early 21st Century: Yancey

As I was reading Bean's piece I was trying to remember how I graded my student's pieces before we started using rubrics. I couldn't really remember too much. I kind of remember red penned papers with comments and a random grade on top. I'm not really sure how I came up with the grade. This seems ludicrous to me. I think I then moved on to just giving a number 1-6 based on the ideas from one of the state testing rubrics, (GEPA at the time) but I never created the rubric. I also remember using checklists. How did I get away with this? How did parents not call me up and make me explain my every grade? They never did. Was this just the standard that was going on throughout schools everywhere? I am happy to say that rubrics make so much sense to me now. They have been life changing in grading my student's writing pieces. I do think that they still leave room for subjectivity, but they make our jobs, as writing teacher's so much easier. I also think that teaching younger students certain skills makes the creation of rubrics manageable for me, as those specific skills make their way into my rubrics. I like how Bean pointed out that there are so many types of rubrics out there and that teachers can make the rubric fit who they are and what they expect of their students.

Yancey's piece explains that writing assessment in higher education is sticky business. Over the years the different methods have been deemed conflicted, unfair, culturally biased, and purposefully questionable. There has been progress made to make writing assessments more open and productive for students. She discusses the use of portfolios as one way method. Student response to using portfolios has been very positive. They show growth as well as areas of difficulties. Students are able to reflect on themselves as writers. However, even portfolios can be used in different ways by different teachers making their reliability as a writing assessment unclear. The entire article for me sounded as though, there is this struggle to finding a well balanced assessment. I'm not sure if one exists. I think that there should be an emphasis on several assessments to determine the growth of a writer and analyze a program. Formative and summative assessments are both valuable. Clearly there is still a lot of work to be done in this area.

Tobey's Rough Draft -This draft is VERY ROUGH- I am looking forward to some peer feedback tomorrow!!

 September 27, 2002, 7:30 in the evening. That was the night my mother's eyes turned black, and she left me. I don't know where she went. I thought she would come home, but instead I watched her die in front of me.

The image of her death left me wounded. It was the kind of wound that felt like it would never heal. The kind that I wouldn't let others see. The kind that was private. My wound made me ill and stuck no matter how much I pretended that it didn't exist. I went through the motions of life. I looked after my dad, worked, tried to do "normal" things again, but it didn't work. Anxiety manifested into my life. I became consumed with worry. I felt like I would die all of the time. It was too much. I knew I had to face the image, the black eyes.

6:00 every Tuesday for twelve years, a comfortable room, an earnest face, safety-it was my place-my place to heal. I talked about everything in my life, everything that is, except the black eyes and that September 27th. I avoided it. And through that avoidance, my wound continued to consume me. There have been times that I tried to talk about that moment, I tried to relive it, or share what it has done to me, but panic would set in and I simply couldn't proceed. My fear-the heaviness would hold me forever.

June 2015. A new opportunity awaited me in a graduate school program: The Kean University Writing Project Summer Institute. I was excited and nervous. Kim, our professor smiled and shared of the wonderful possibilities awaiting us. The five other students seemed to be open and optimistic. As we looked over the syllabus and work load, we were introduced to the "Author's Chair." The idea of having to share a writing piece with others brings about a feeling of vulnerability. First up, me. What was I going to share?

With my time in the "Author's Chair" approaching, I became consumed by my ideas of what to write. I already started my academic piece and could share parts of that. That would be safe. But I knew what I wanted to write, I knew what wanted to come out of me. It sat and sat in there for so long. Could I really write about it? Could I share my wound with these people who I hardly knew? This could be my opportunity to start to heal, for real. As I sat in my car, I grabbed an envelope and just started writing. I cried and wrote on the back of an envelope in a parking lot in my car.  It was release.

The day of author's share and I had two choices in my hands. The academic piece felt light and safe while the other lay like a heavy brick. I chose the brick. What was created on the back the envelope was a poem about my mom's black eyes. After I shared, what I received was more than writing feedback, I gained insight into other's healing and was given advice about how I can proceed with my own. I ran with it. Towards the end of the Summer Institute, I wrote a companion piece about healing.

Healing is a part of life. Healing happens through medicine, stitches, an ice pack, someone's kind words. Sometimes we have a wound that is so deep, that we may feel that we will never be healed. That's what I thought, but I was wrong. My healing came from the unlikeliest of places; a small office on a college campus, in an author's chair, facing five women who I barely knew. My healing came through writing.

Tutoring ESL Students: issues & Options : Harris & Silva       Teaching Composition in the Multilingual World: Matsuda


Both articles bring to light the important task of teaching students who are learning English. There are many challenges to providing a successful learning experience for these students within a composition classroom.

In Harris and Silva's piece they focus on strategies to help writing center tutors feel more prepared and better able to provide assistance to ELL students. The authors feel that there is a lack of communication and guidance provided to the tutors and that open discussion needs to take place in order to benefit the tutors and especially the ELL students seeking their advice.

As I read their advice: prioritize errors, look for patterns, but don't assume all patterns are culturally based, some grammar rules may be helpful, but think more about ways to help the students "stretch" their writing, use multiple drafts for different purposes (one for content and one for linguistics), I found myself thinking I could implement some of these to help my own ELL students. Over the years, it has been one of the biggest challenges for me to find successful ways to best reach this population of students. This also makes me think about Matsuda's piece and how he recommends more professional development for teachers. He states that all writing teachers are already second language writing teachers. I couldn't agree more. However, at least in my district, the ELL kids have their own classrooms and have a teacher with a degree in that field. Therefore, the rest of us are never trained on ways to help those students further when they exit the program and join our writing classrooms. This may be one reason why many teachers hold the same demands for ELL students in their writing classrooms while others who understand the dynamics of their learning. There needs to be consistency.

Matsuda also addresses how there is a stigma placed/felt by many of these learners. They feel separated. One way he feels that the issue of stigma can be dealt with is by providing choice when creating courses in their higher education. If a student wants to take a writing course designed for ELL writers they can, but are not forced to. I think this is very important as ELL students have varying degrees of knowledge and abilities. Not all need the same things in the way of a writing class. Any time choice is given to people, a sense of importance is created. They matter. What they think matters.

Finally, I couldn't agree more that there is a "monolingual myth" about our schools. A monolingual classroom does not exist any more, and teachers need to be better prepared to reach all students, as they all deserve a chance at success. Mastuda's piece shows the history of reaching ELL students since after WWII. We have made some strides, but I think we need to continue to grow in this area. Both articles highlight the need for communication and training. I agree.

Steve North-"Produce better writers, not better writing."

Ideas for our Project

I recently saw a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald that said, “You don’t write because you want to say something; you write because you’ve got something to say.” We all have our own writing stories to share and that mean something to us. We all have something that we feel is important to say. But how are they connected? Some may be about the moment you found your voice. Others may be about a writing moment that was significant in some way to your life. We need an umbrella large enough so as not to limit anyone, but concise enough to have a point of view. I also, as others posted, like Laura's idea of Writing Matters. However, I've been trying to think of some other possible titles myself. I have to admit that it's not easy. Just a few thoughts, not necessarily titles. Ughhh:

The Power of Writing???
A Moment in Writing???
The Writing Connection??? 
How Writing Feeds Us???

Tobey's Reaction Paper- Sommers and Murray

Tobey's Reaction Paper

Jaxon, Bean, and Beach & Friedrich- Teacher Comments, Peer Response, and Revision

This week I found all three articles to be helpful. They actually all gave concrete suggestions that teachers can use to benefit their writing students. I really liked that I had some "take away tools" to implement into my classroom. One of the biggest thoughts I had as I was reading brought me back to the Sommers article from a few weeks ago, and that was how students can easily feel that their teachers are not invested in them. That became most clearly stated in the Bean article. I loved that he included research showing students' comments after receiving vague or mean feedback on their writing pieces. This was so telling to me. Kids are emotionally invested in their work, and teachers often dismiss this. To get these types of comments must be so frustrating, even damaging. I enjoyed how he modeled how using feedback can be useful and even showed the improved revised piece afterwards.

The Beach and Friedrich piece was helpful in that they honed in on the different types of feedback out there and how each works. They addressed ELL students often, stating that these learners want more negative comments because they want to know what's wrong and fix it. I also really liked that they suggested taping comments and conferences. Such a clever idea. That can be useful for low level learners and for teachers. Being able to reflect on ourselves is so important. What better way than to hear ourselves instructing our students. And, Nancie Atwell. I simply admire her, and the fact that they quote one of her strategies that I vowed to use this year is so cool. Attwell's In the Middle, is a great resource for all things writing, and a place I often like to visit. Beach and Friedrich mentioned her tactic of writing back to her students, a useful technique that I read about last year and added to my list of "thing to try" for this year. Overall, I think their article has some substantial meat to it and gives teachers some groundwork for helping them provide the best feedback in order for their students to create stronger revisions.

Finally, the Jaxon piece was great. She had many concrete ideas to strengthen peer responses. I love having my students work together on their writings, but man, it takes a lot of practice and modeling to get them to a place where they can do the work Jaxon poses. Because I have my students for two years, I feel that there is so much growth in this area, but baby steps need happen. Right now we are practicing using "glow" and "grow" statements. They still all want to comment on handwriting, spelling, or grammar. I do agree with her reasons for why we incorporate peer work: that a deeper knowledge is created, there is an immediate audience for the text, and it helps students reflect on their own work. This is smart work, but takes time to build.

Reconsiderations: Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries: Peter Elbow  and   Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke: Pedagogical Performances of Class, Gender, and Sexuality: Michelle Gibson, Martha Marinara, and Deborah Meem

Ahh! Peter Elbow! I truly love his way of thinking. Each piece we read by him makes me think he is so right on! He starts this piece off by discussing how "voice" was once the "hot topic" amongst theorist. There was buzz about it and much disagreement. However, as of late, the topic has grown cold and quiet. Elbow believes it to be a worthy topic that should be revitalized. How does he do so, by writing this piece that not only addresses both sides of the argument, but brings up new ways of thinking about it. He argues for both sides! How clever! 

As I was reading, I couldn't help thinking about how each side of his argument had validity. On one side of the argument he states how using voice in our writing creates and allows for a sense of self and identity. Who you are as a writer and individual comes through when there is voice. I know, for example, that when I read pieces by my own students who have achieved voice, I am able to tell which piece is theirs. I don't even have to look at the name. Their pieces have an identity and flare that is unique to them. Consequently, I also agree with Elbow's other side of the argument that there are certain writing forms that are more formal or informational, and perhaps by including voice, the information gets lost, and therefore the piece becomes unclear. This may be the case for scientific studies and such. Just as with last week's Peter Elbow piece Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking, there needs to be a balance. As good writers we need to decide what form we using to create our piece, whom the intended audience is, and the purpose for the piece. If I'm creating poetry, I better have voice as opposed to a lab report that probably will do well with the just the facts. 

He ends the piece by stating,"I'm asking us to learn to be wiser in our scholarly thinking and writing... Such thinking can often release us from dead-end critical arguments that are framed by the unexamined assumption that if two positions seem incompatible, only one can be valid."  Elbow proves that there are often multiple view points to analyzing a topic of interest. He urges theorists to reexamine the issue of voice, but to look at it the light that there may not be one true correct method. I feel that this piece was very successful in this task.

In the text, Bi, Butch, and Bar Dyke the three professors shared personal stories about how their identities effected their teaching lives. Each reflection was honest and unique. The narratives shed light on the challenges that this minority group faces within their professional worlds. 

While reading, there were times when I felt anger or sadness for these women. The first time was when Marinara shared how she felt connected to her advanced composition course of all women, only to soon feel betrayed by their negative comments about Adrienne Rich, the well known lesbian poet and writer. She states, "I had forgotten how different I am from many women." My heart broke for her. It was in that moment that she realized that she had had become too comfortable with this class. In addition when papers came in that were more about personal opinions she reverted to grading the papers  focusing on academic and theoretical arguments. She no longer shared anything about her life. 

The other moment was when Gibson shared her very honest self-assessment with her administrative team and was told how it was basically unacceptable. Talk about using voice! The fact that she is an accomplished professor who came from a difficult past shows her drive in life. In addition, when she shared how she connects with her students and they told her she should be connecting with them not her students, I felt disgusted. Don't we or shouldn't we as teachers all have at least a few stories about how we connected with students, shouldn't those administrators have been able to identify with her through her stories, by thinking Ah, yes. I remember when this student... I do realize that perhaps she shared a bit much and not everyone in academia is ready for such brutal honesty,or perhaps she needed to think about her audience a bit more, but some of their comments were harsh (this reads like a rant). It felt as though there was a silencing happening.

The most important point about the entire article for me comes in the conclusion. It states, "We must think seriously about the identities we bring with us into the classroom, remain conscious of the way those identities interact with the identities our students bring, and insert ourselves fully into the shifting relationships between ourselves and our students at the same time resist the impulse to control those relationships." I think each woman learned this. There once again needs to be a balance. More diverse literature and topics needs to come into our classrooms. More open conversations need to happen. However, we need to maintain a balance between who we are in the classroom and who our students are. Meem's chart shows that there are many hats that encompass us. We are not one identity. We must remember that when we are designing lessons for students. The best thing we can do for our students is to teach them to think for themselves. 



Final Project

I never really write too much about the final project because I have been ok with all of the awesome ideas we have had. However, I am really happy with what we sorted out last week. It felt much more friendly to everyone in the class, which was a concern of mine. I also have quite a few ideas swarming around in my head. I need to sit and narrow down my thinking. I like the personal feel of the vignettes and I like that they can take any form. 

Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgement: Peter Elbow &     Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar: Patrick Hartwell

Peter Elbow really puts into perspective the harm that can be caused by over assessing and assigning grades. Teachers, students, and parents, have become very reliant on individual grades. In his piece, he addresses the distinct problems with ranking students and the harm it causes. The one issue that I relate to the most is number three, " Ranking leads to students to get so hung up on these oversimple quantitative verdicts that they care more about scores than about learning-more about the grade we put onto paper than about the comment we have written on it." It made me think about Nancy Sommers and our discussion from last week. So, we finally change our ways of commenting to make them stronger and meaningful, but the kids could care less because they just want to see the number and letter the paper received. Alas, we all know that grades are a part of our educational world. And, I would be a big liar if I said that I didn't want to know how I was doing based on grades. I get just as anxious when I turn in an assignment and know that I am being evaluated by my professors as my students are when they turn work into me. I am also pleased and feel good about myself if I receive a good grade. However, I think this is Elbow's point, the final product and letter grade that accompanies it, should not define how we feel about ourselves as learners.

He goes on to discuss using evaluation as a much more promising method to teach writers how to improve their work. He calls evaluation, "looking hard and thoughtfully at a piece of writing in order to make distinctions as to the quality of different features or dimensions." This allows a teacher to truly read a piece and give the kinds of feedback we discussed last week. It opens dialogue between the teacher and student, and provides an opportunity for the student writer to make changes he feels will truly strengthen his work. I definitely feel that Nancy Sommers would agree with Peter Elbow's method here. There feels like a marriage between their thinking. 

Elbow also goes on to state how he knows he can't have his way one hundred percent, and that there is a compromise to be made between ranking and evaluating. His use of portfolios, contract grading, a holistic grid, and student magazines give the students the ranking they want. In addition, he provides "evaluation free zones" where students participate in free writing and create non evaluative assignments, where his only comment is "thank you." I agree that students can grow through these non-evaluative activities. Free writing permits a writer freedom to experiment with choice, voice, and technique. Knowing that the piece doesn't have to be shared opens the writer up to taking risks. Daily practice is invaluable. 

Finally, Elbow addresses the importance of writers liking their work. I never really thought about this before, but makes such sense to me. "It's not improvement that leads to liking, but liking that leads to improvement." What a simplistic and genius statement. If a writer doesn't buy into their piece, doesn't care about it to start with, then why would they care to invest the time and energy working on it? Liking, doesn't mean that a piece is perfect and that it doesn't need to be rework and revised, it means that there is great potential and drive to do the reworking. It's important to teach our students this notion. 

Onto grammar! Hartwell certainly let's the grammarians have it. He starts off by basically stating that grammarians are never really satisfied with any research that is done because it doesn't fall in their favor. They seem to always find excuses as to why the studies can be picked apart. They even find excuses as to why their own research failed to fall on their side. It seems that grammarians and anti-grammarians simply don't trust each other. He goes onto state that this piece will put it all to rest because he is going to look at the grammar issues in a whole new light. He addresses four specific questions that hopes are answered and will lay any debate to rest.

I actually enjoyed his point of view. He makes a very strong case for why we should not teach formal, skills-centered grammar in isolation. By providing the five definitions of grammar and plucking apart each one, he must leave grammarians with their mouths agape. (As a side note, if  I was instructed to teach my class grammar as Kolln and Neuleib stressed, I would quit. I can't think of anything more dull, joyless, and tedious. )

The examples he provides are powerful and true. How many times do I hear teachers say, my kids can't name a preposition or a linking verb? However, the kid can create a correct sentence. I'm not saying that there are not students out there who have true deficiencies. Who are not constructing sentences and don't know how to punctuate and capitalize correctly. I know there are. They are in my classroom. What I do know, is that cramming a bunch of grammar rules down their throats is not going to fix the problem. These students who have writing deficiencies are also my students who are not at appropriate reading level. Hartwell makes that distinction in his text as well. there is a connection to writing and literacy. The problems low achieving students are experiencing, are far beyond not knowing the rules for commas. Besides, as he states, once students learn a set of rules there are thirty exceptions to those rules that mess things up!

Grammar instruction is important. It needs to be taught and is often overlooked. However, Kolln's and Neuleib's vision is not only out dated (this piece is written in 1985) and boring, but it is useless. 

We truly need some new and innovative ways to address the area of teaching grammar in a writing classroom.








Thoughts on the Shared Project

I really enjoyed hashing things out more last week. I think we are headed somewhere. As we were talking things through, my wheels started spinning, and I was able to think how I could contribute to any of the ideas we had listed. I really like the idea of creating a list of innovative lessons that any writing teacher can use. Incorporating things like an "anti" lesson, music, or pop culture is a great way to pull students in and keep their interest. I also like thinking of ways that we can create writing pieces that may not be traditional. Having a bank like this is something teachers would love to go to. I know I would. I think back, once again, to KUWP and how we were all inspired by each others lessons, and couldn't wait to try them in our own classrooms. Having resources from other educators is amazing. My concern is the age group, I don't want anyone to feel that they are creating lessons for a group they aren't interested in or to feel uncomfortable. Many lessons can be tweaked for different ages, so we can probably work out this issue.  

Yancey's "On Reflection" and Sommers' "Responding to Student Writing"

I have to admit that I really enjoyed both pieces this week as I felt they pertained to my teaching life. Providing feedback has been something of a "hot topic" in my language arts department at work, while using reflection more with my students is a technique that I have wanted to grow this year.

To begin with, the Nancy Sommers' piece was filled with value and truth. As my students begin their first big writing piece of the year, and we begin to talk about the importance of revision, I ask them if they have ever been given back a paper with comments from the teacher that they either didn't understand or that the don't know how to fix. Almost every hand goes up. They share that some teachers only care if they make grammar mistakes even if they have written the greatest stories of their young lives, or that they get the "you need to elaborate more" comment on every paper ever written, but the teacher never teaches them how to elaborate more.  My students seem to exhibit frustration when sharing these reflections. This resonates exactly with Sommers' text.

Within the text, Sommers opens by stating how time consuming writing comments and feedback on students' papers is. One would think that such a time consuming endeavor would be the most beneficial in helping student writers grow. However, she goes on to raise concerns surrounding this practice. The two issues found within her research shows that,"teachers' comments can take students' attention away from their own purposes in writing a particular text and focus that attention on the teachers' attention in commenting." The other finding states that," teachers' comments are not text-specific and could be interchanged, rubber-stamped, from text-to-text." Both of these findings show that the teacher holds a lot of power over the student and their writing. The voice and intention of the student can easily become lost as they worry more about the vague feedback they try to fix to gain a good grade. 

I am guilty of the red penned papers from my past, before I knew better. However, I feel that I have gotten stronger in teaching students that feedback comes along the way as they write. Comments are not special only to the end of a published piece. As hard as it is for students to understand this, writing truly is recursive. When I meet with my students in small groups or one on one, they gain feedback. When we gathered for whole class mini-lessons on how to ___ they are gaining feedback through a lesson that they need try in their writing. Yes, there are comments at the end, but they are never, "you need more elaboration." They are specific to each child based on his piece and his need. It may become a goal for his next piece. 

My favorite quote from this piece is," the teacher holds a license for vagueness while the student is commanded to be specific." That is really unfair!

While reading the Yancey piece, I could not help but think about my time over the summer with the Kean University Writing Project. Whenever anyone asks me about my biggest take aways from my time in this institute, I always talk about the time that I had to reflect. I was able to reflect on myself as an educator, on my teaching practices, on my writing, and on myself as a person. I came to understand that reflection is invaluable. I also know that there is not always enough of it happening. It is something that I want to do more within my own life and also with my students. As I looked over some of my classmates' blog posts, I noticed that Colin really hit the mark on how writing reflection is treated in schools. It is that quick, end of the year piece, that goes on to their next year's teacher. What I would like to do is instill more time throughout the year. I have set up blogs for my students to reflect on their learning at different moments throughout the year. This text really solidified the value that I already knew was there.

Throughout the text there were many phrases and thoughts that stood out to me. That reflection:

• Brings about self awareness
• Shows how learning is happening
• Is an ongoing conversation a writer has with himself
• Stimulates the growth of consciousness
• Gives authority to what is going on inside the writer's head
• Allows for goal-setting
• Is controlled by the learner
• Calls for dialogue 
• Allows us to understand ourselves through explaining ourselves to others
• Is a habit of the mind- one that transforms
• Is rhetorical
• Helps teachers to know which methods are the most successful
• Can be private or public

Finally, thoughts on our final project...

I was kind of amazed at how quickly ideas jumped out. I'm kind of a "marinater (??)." I need to really think about things afterwards. I like the idea of the handbook. I think I like it more for teachers than for students, as I feel it would be a very different construction. I think if we create it for teachers we can divide it into age groups or by lessons. I also agree (someone's post said it) that we need to think about those in the class who are not educators. How do they feel about this? Could there be more than one project? I'm sure the answer is yes. What is the focus of the handbook?  I'm also happy with digital and analog I do see the argument for both sides. I guess I'm still vague here. Perhaps we need a little more "hashing it out."

Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century

Richard Fulkerson

Fulkerson ends his piece with a quote by Scott McLemee that states that, "the field of composition studies is on the verge of what undoubtedly will come to be known as the new theory wars." This pretty much sums up Fulkerson's piece. He explains throughout, that the field has become "less unified" over the decades. There is a division in the goals of how to help students to become better writers. He goes on to address the three current axiologies  that are at the forefront: critical/cultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric. As he breaks down each, he examines them based on four questions he feels must be fully answered. The results of the four questions determine if a course can come to fruition based on the philosophy. The questions deal with axiology, process, pedagogy, and epistemology. 

He begins analyzing critical/cultural studies which are theme based approaches. Within this classroom, students are given theme based readings that deal with topics of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. They are to analyze readings and create writing pieces that empower or liberate them from societal injustices. As I was reading this, two things came to my that were confirmed later in the text. First, this approach is much more suited for social sciences as it is a content based approach to writing. The second is that it doesn't feel quite like a writing class. There does not seem to be writing instruction happening. Fulkerson goes on to explain that students often end up feeling confused about the grading and expectations within this type of course. 

The next approach he discusses is the expressivist approach. This approach allows for self exploration. Writings take place in the form of journaling, freewriting, and reflective writing. Writing with voice is an important aspect of this classroom. However, a main concern seems to the teacher's role or decision making. Nothing seems to be "set in stone." There is no specific way to teach expressive writing. This feels to me like there are worthwhile pieces to this approach. Freewriting and journaling are needed for writing students  in order to gain voice and practice techniques. However, there sounds as if there needs to be more structure within this classroom. Voice and expressing one's feelings are valuable, but there are other types of writing that need to be incorporated.

Finally, Fulkerson discusses procedural rhetoric as an approach to the writing classroom. Rhetorical approaches seem to favor the WPA's minimal standards for first year college writing courses which Fulkerson feels aligns more with 1970s/1980s tradition. Some emerging factors from this classroom is that the teacher is seen as a coach, writing skills and techniques are taught and practiced, and different types of writings are taught.  Within this approach it feels as though writing instruction is taking place. There is a structure and an understanding of outcomes. 

Fulkerson ends his piece with conclusions and implications. He lists seven points as to where the conversation leaves us; basically with a lot to talk about. When we finished discussing the Lauer piece in our last class one of the questions that was raised was where will writing theory be in ___ years. This piece shows us that there is a movement happening. There also feels like a divide. I personally feel like there is value in all three of the approaches he discussed. I wonder if the conversation can look and see a way of combining the best qualities of each approach and creating one universal writing classroom. Just an idea.

Teach Writing as a Process Not Product

Donald M. Murray

In his piece Teach Writing as a Process Not Product, Donald M. Murray voices his concerns that students' writings are unfairly critiqued by their instructors. He believes that English teachers have been trained to examine students' final product only, causing frustration and confirming the students' "lack of self respect for their work and for themselves." It becomes a joyless cycle for both the teacher and student. As he describes it, all I can think of is an instructor standing at the front of a classroom and assigning the next writing piece by saying, "Ok. Here is your topic. You must write about_______, even if you hate it or know nothing about it. Oh yeah, and your paper will count as 50% of your grade." In 1972 when he wrote this paper, writing theory was taking off. This was a much needed breath of fresh air. He writes this piece to convince his audience that the process of creating writing pieces is much more important than the end product. 

When he discusses process he brings up the three stages of writing: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Murray goes on to address the importance of implementing this language into a writing classroom, and he introduces guidelines for teachers to follow to make the transition of the product to process classroom successful. Some of the guidelines are for us to actually listen to our students and allow time for writing in our classrooms. In addition, giving our students some room to explore is important. Let them discover their own interests and topics. He calls English instructors, "coaches, encouragers, and developers." These were new hats for teachers to wear in 1972. However, I think many writing teachers not only change their hats daily, but have a large closet filled with them. Finally, he goes on to discuss the positive implications of turning one's classroom from a product based classroom into and process based classroom. The positive implications range from developing partnerships, to creating more choice and excitement for students, to giving more value to voice. 

There is so much within this piece that I agree with and find myself doing within my own classroom. When he talks about teaching "unfinished writing, and glory in its unfinishedness." My students do have a place for that in their writer's notebooks. They have regular time to practice techniques, try new genres, and tackle ideas they may never had tried before. I also agree that we need to allow students to create their own topics, that they are on discoveries when creating their writings. Years ago, we used to give students topics and the writings they produced were stiff and joyless. Now when students can write about their interests, the pieces they produce are much more authentic and they are willing to take more risks. I also love where he calls the teachers, "coaches, encouragers, developers, and creators of environments in which our students can experience the writing process for themselves." It makes me think of my role in the classroom, not as dictator, but as the person modeling writing, finding powerful mentor texts, leading impactful conferences and strategy groups, and supporting my students.

As there is much of this piece that I agree and connect with, there are a few areas that I must question or disagree. First of all, in a perfect world, grades would be abolished, especially for the younger grades where it is more important to focus on a child's development rather than putting a letter on him. However, we all know as educator's that grades are not going anywhere. Mr. Murray is not being realistic in is call to be rid of graded writing pieces. One way that I think writing grades are more fairly delved out are with the use of rubrics. I know that, at least in my district, we are very careful about the creation and implementation of rubrics. With better training and writing programs finding their into America's schools, teachers are more knowledgeable now then they were when this article was written. The big thing I question about this piece is the classroom Mr. Murray is addressing. Does he feel that his philosophy is absolute to every writing classroom? How would he adjust his thinking for different age groups? Is this piece directed to teachers of all levels, elementary up to college? My reason for questioning is that younger children are still learning so much about writing. They can't always be so free. They need more guidance. For example, when speaking about the three stages of the writing process, I often tease my middle school students about being allergic to prewriting and revising. They hate both of these steps. As much as I know that writing is recursive and I try to instill this into my twelve year old students, there are many of them who battle me every step of the way. In addition, implication number ten stresses that all writing is experimental and that students should just write. However, if they are still learning techniques and need to practice these techniques, they must be held accountable for practice. They can not simply "go for it" if they do not know how to write well. 

All in all, I feel that this is an important piece for teachers of writing and theorists to read and to discuss. It is important for writers to break away from the "old school" stagnant product style classroom. Murray shows us that there is much more to creation and that is as important than the final outcome. The journey of getting to a place is often more exciting or rewarding than actually pulling into the parking lot.