Group items tagged

The title of the article, Understanding the College First-year Experience, basically explains the focus of the article. Kirk Kidwell summarizes the typical first year development of a freshman student as a time of purgatory. Successful students are able to go through four phases; dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment to relativism. Through the phases, students lean to change from a passive style of learning to an active style of learning, as well as learn the "game: of college academia. In the game of college writing, Kidwell believes if students pass through the "academic hazing" or purgatory of the first year, they will learn the following two lessons. First, "College is not high school; one cannot just coast through" (Kidwell 253). Second, "The successful college student takes responsibility for his or her education" (Kidwell 254). These lessons are a good idea, but I feel they are too simple. Of course college is not high school. Stating such an obvious observation seems condescending towards freshmen students, regardless if they do or do not realize the fact. Also, the article summarizes the first year well, but it leaves out the more intricate parts of changing the issues freshmen students face. The missing issues include; how can teachers make the freshmen year less of a purgatory, is it possible to prepare high school students better through a change of curriculum, how do we help students to stay in college instead of dropping out, and how can we create awareness of college "is not high school"? These are crucial points that are completely missing from the article, thus the article is better for a basic understanding of what freshmen endure their first year of college.

This article discusses a study that was done to test the level of social adjustment of college freshmen and the relationship between their living environment and gender. Some of the students in the study were in first year experience resident halls and others were not. The study found that males overall had a more successful adjustment no matter what their living environment was and that all students, male and female, in the first year experience halls had successful transition. Also the students in the first year experience halls had an overall better social experience than those who were not in first year experience halls.

This study focuses on colleges with first year experience programs and whether or not having these programs be main faculty led is beneficial. It explores the idea that have upper classmen take part in the first year experience by interacting with freshmen would make the transition process easier because the first year students would connect more with peers than teachers. In the introduction it says that 'more than 68% of 2005 high school graduates entered some form of post-secondary education within 4 months of graduation' but more than 40% of these students fail to complete college and that most students will drop out within the first 6 weeks.

"Understanding the Gap Between High School and College Writing" compares the different levels of writing between high school student and college students. The article found that the two groups of teachers, high school and college, have extremely different views of the students' level of writing. While 36 percent of the high school teachers believed their students were well prepared, only 6 percent of college faculty thought the students were well prepared. The article examines how first year writing courses can be organized to help the incoming students more by surveying the students' writing history and getting a detailed account of the common or not common assignments from their senior year of high school. Often, the assignments and skills expected in college were not yet developed in high school students, including criticizing a written argument, providing peer feedback, and turning in drafts. The article concludes with ways in which first year writing classes may be improved, as well as examples of the different types of needs that have to be met.

Ardashir Vakil's "Teaching Creative Writing", to me, is an essential read. And I should add that I'm rarely excited by "Academic" writing. What makes Vakil's article different? Well other than his very cool name, he tackles the very real problem of teaching creativity with an opening salvo that had me hooked instantly. Paraphrasing Vakil's words in the first paragraph, you can't teach creativity. What he explores after qualifying his position is in and of itself a story. Vakil hopes to reveal his meaning by giving a kind of case study example of how he learned an important lesson in teaching. His attempt to impart that knowledge begins first though with another example, that of writer Anthony Trollope's attempts to turn his son into a great writer. In what read more like a conversation Vakil continues with an observation he's made of a trend in education, "…there has been a surge of interest in and enthusiasm for courses that offer creative writing, not to speak of books by writers and academics who profess to teach you how to write the perfect story or novel." (157). It's a trend I find myself following and since Vakil wrote this article in 2008 I wonder whether it has grown stronger in the last four years. The first whole paragraph of the second page boils down the troubles teachers face so well I wish I could quote the whole thing but I'll just point it out as an intensely insightful piece of the whole. As the piece continues Vakil describes what he did in his workshops and I must say I was envious of his students. As you follow Vakil's student through her journey to discover her writer's voice it is almost as though you are sitting across from Vakil while he tells the story, a quality of his writer's voice that burned brightly through this very academic material. I don't know that I'll say this many more times but this is a must read for anyone interested in teaching creative writing.

"profess to teach you how to write the perfect story or novel". Do you believe that creative writing is about teaching other to write a perfect story or novel? For me, i don't know. I'm not a writer, so i would assume so.

The study, "Prospective Teachers' Insights towards Scaffolding Students' Writing Processes through Teacher-Student Role Reversal in an Online System", researches how teachers may better understand the difficulties faced by students and how to facilitate student writing in a classroom. To do this, fourteen prospective teachers enrolled in a three week long, online, computer-supported environment where they would switch into roles as students instead of teachers. The prospective teachers were a group of second year graduate students in a Master's program in English teaching and had been studying English as a foreign language for ten years. Every week, the prospective teachers took on a different role; first as a student writer, then as a student editor, and finally as a student commentator. As student writers, they wrote and posted first drafts of their essays. Then, as student editors, they revised their peers' drafts and provided suggestions. Next, the prospective teachers evaluated their peer editors' suggestions. Finally the prospective students rewrote and posted their final essays. The prospective teachers perceived the role reversal as "a valuable experience through which they were able to understand their students' actual needs and difficulties in writing" (365). The prospective teachers also learned how to empathize with their future students' possible difficulties and will now reflect constantly on their own roles as English as a foreign language teachers and as students.

Aimee C. Mapes writes about her experience as a teacher in Freshman Connection of FC, on the social and cultural context among at-risk, first-year university students. Issues of identity are central to understanding the discourse because the context instances identity. I found parallels in the experiences of Keneika and my own experiences as a minority, although she was a girl. The study examined the role of gender as the site of pedagogic content. Academically underprepared students in the federal TRIO program include first generation, having low income, racial minority status, or learning disabled. The author/instructor also felt a commonality with the student she observed. One thing that emerged from the FC progam was that conflict emerged and it was related to identity. The most interesting thing to me was the fact that because of the focus on "at-risk" groups, much of the attention was devoted to males. This dynamic was a response to the male voice that dominated discussions and seemed to be heard whenever there were behavoiral problems--males were associated with problems and males were overrepresented as a result. The programmatic behavoir necessarily overlooked the status or identity of females in the FC. Because the females were not vocal, their nonparticipation, as a function of gender, diminished focus on them. Keneika responded to her position through the assignments. She thought of herself in very positive terms and absolutely different from the males whom she considered inferior. Everything that represented male to her, she constructed the opposite trait or quality for herself. Assignments offer students a way to polarize against social positioning.

Interesting! Aimee Mapes did her MA here at Chico State. Will have to read the article!

This article was written by Lawrence Musgrove, an associate professor of English and foreign language at Saint Xavier University in Chicago, Illinois. In the article he talks about a lot of the same problems that we have been touching on in class with concerns to first year English composition classes. After a quick discussion of the issues with English composition, he goes into his proposal for a solution. He first conjured up a metaphor between writing and driving. Bad driving has very concrete consequences, and Musgrove thinks that writing should, too. His proposal is centered on professors issuing students "writing tickets" that can be cleared up by attending workshops, seminars, revising their paper, or any other writing task their professor deems sufficient. While reading the responses posted after his article, I noticed that his ideas drew attention from all sorts of different people. People from all different professions and backgrounds (high school students, business men, elementary teachers, etc) had a variety of things to say. Some people loved his idea, and others heavily disputed it. I found that the responses generated were as resourceful as the article itself.

In this TED talk video Dave Eggers is talking enthusiastically about free tutoring centers where students receive one-on-one attention from either more experienced peers or teachers who volunteer to go to these centers at least two hours a week. He backs up the need of having individual help by research data (I would be interested to see the primary research) which say that 35-40 hours a year one-on-one attention students can get one grade level higher. The first center was opened to offer help in English and writing. Although there was an issue of trust at first to visit the center, with time and some advertising the center got packed with students. They even published their own writing in a form of a book, which is inspiring as it honors their work, hardship, creativity and thoughts. Now they have 1400 students in the center and they want to grow nationwide. Also, they have a website (http://www.onceuponaschool.org/) where there is somebody to show guidance to those who are interested in starting their own learning center in their town (for their public school students). To me, this is a great idea to inspire students and keep their motivation going in a particular subject. I wonder if they have done research and found out students of what achievement tend to go there, is it possible that those who are already into writing, science, languages, etc, are the ones visiting these centers. I also wonder if the volunteers who are there to help receive any kind training about certain methodology or ground rules.

"I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years. We had been Ph.D. students at the same time, both studying science, although in different areas. She later dropped out of graduate school, went to Harvard Law School and is now a senior lawyer for a major environmental organization. At some point, the conversation turned to why she had left graduate school. To my utter astonishment, she said it was because it made her feel stupid. After a couple of years of feeling stupid every day, she was ready to do something else. I had thought of her as one of the brightest people I knew and her subsequent career supports that view. What she said bothered me. I kept thinking about it; sometime the next day, it hit me. Science makes me feel stupid too. It's just that I've gotten used to it. So used to it, in fact, that I actively seek out new opportunities to feel stupid. I wouldn't know what to do without that feeling. I even think it's supposed to be this way."

I thought this article was a good fit on the path I, believe, I will be taking for my inquiry project ----- student efficacy within an English workshop. The article, written by James Williams and Seiji Takaku, covers the basis of workshops much like Rodby and Fox did in our packet article; however, the article instead of focusing on the structure of workshops focused on the students' efficacy and the effects it may have in order for a workshop to function as it was intended to - to help students better their composition skills in and outside of the English classroom. The article also mentions research done on students within "remedial" workshops and realized "...students had self-efficacy beliefs that did not match their writing performance .... their overestimated sense of efficacy was related to a lack of appropriate, correctional feedback in high school as well as to the tendency among high school teachers to praise and reward students for merely participating in the writing process rather than for producing good work" (3). I thought this statement was interesting because I find it to be true, especially in my experience with not only my internship at PVHS but also with my experience, this year, in Eng 30 workshops and my tutor sessions with second language learners. Sometimes educators focus on participation and the actual process of completing an assignment rather than making sure the student is adequately learning and putting into practice what is being taught/learned. The article also acknowledges the workshop characteristics that may affect students' self-efficacy in the first place. "In the U.S., the majority of writing centers rely on peer tutors" (4). "Some staff include graduate students, but only 3% of 4-year public universities employ professional tutors, that is, persons with an advanced degree" (4). This was a keynote since it reflects on the Casanave article from our class packet ---- to what degree can a peer be considered an actual peer

"This interdisciplinary approach to rites of passage comprises 31 essays by outstanding contributors, including Marie-Louise yon Franz, Robert Bly, James Hall, Helen Luke, Victor Turner, and Marion Woodman."A watershed book ... an interdisciplinary array of essays highlights both the need for, and importance of, rights of passage to mark important transitions in our lives". Victor Turner's essay, "Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites of Passage" gives readers a better understanding of human's inner growth during the various stages of life. As an English 431 student studying English 30 students I notice this group demonstrating feelings of anxiety as if something was lost in translation or transition from high school to college. The transition from high school senior to college freshman appears to be difficult for the students in my internship. I want to know more about their "rites of passage" and why these students are struggling their first year. How does understanding this transition help us better prepare them for success in academic writing?

I ran across this article last year while browsing through journals in the library and thought it was humorous. I thought of it again when we read Bartholomae. In this article by Philip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer, the authors first set out to define what bullshit is, then discuss the ways in which bullshit is an aspect of academic rhetoric. The humorous (and most likely intended) irony is that all the while they are writing in a very traditional academic style which is, in and of itself, often associated with the very claims of bullshit they are examining. The main idea is that it matters not whether the content of the bullshit itself is true or false, but that bullshitters misrepresent themselves and their intentions (375). Eubanks and Schaeffer examine various types and purposes of bullshit, as well as various reasons one might engage in bullshitting, including representing a 'constructed self', gamesmanship, pleasure, reputation and superiority. "To sum up, prototypical bullshit has to do with a purposeful misrepresentation of self, has the quality of gamesmanship, and . . . is at least potentially a lie"(380). In the second half of the article, the authors examine academic writing, determining what features make it prototypical and how those features might be construed to be bullshit. One important aspect is the use of jargon, which seems to many non-academic readers to merely confuse for the purpose of elevating the author's status. "Often academic writers could be clearer but prefer to serve up something that sounds like bullshit" (382). They point out that students imitate this style in their own writing, and are rewarded for it. In addressing the issue of audience, the authors make a statement that is very reminiscent of Lave and Wenger's communities of practice in Situated Learning: "much academic publication, especially by young scholars, aims to qualify the author for membership in a group of specialists" (382). As we discu