Group items tagged

In this excerpt of Oliver's book, Oliver discusses much of what Rose discussed on "how writer's block comes to be" in our text--therefore, I will not go over those points. My main agenda is to see what sort of techniques Oliver uses in his work to suggest how to move past writer's block. On pages 165-168 Oliver discusses the first approaches to writer's block and then three ways that can resolve writer's block. To approach writer's block, Oliver puts the responsibility on the teachers to figure out if their students with writer's block use too rigid rules when composing, and if so, encourage students repeatedly that "Writing is rewriting" and that editing should be done after writing is complete. These notions Oliver states are very close to "better said than done" tasks, since teachers can repeat such things over and over until they are blue in the face but that doesn't mean the students will take those words to heart and change their composing habits. Oliver then moves on to his three "resolutions" to writers block, strongly putting responsibility on the teacher initially. Oliver offers that teachers should have a 10-15minute discussion with their students, using probing questions to prompt ideas for writing. In turn, the students should jot down notes of the ideas that come to their minds. The point of this is to tap into relevant knowledge for their paper assignments. This sort of prompt questioning can then be used by students on their own time, alone or with friends--the teachers just lay the foundation of understanding for their students on how probe questioning can be useful when composing (shift in responsibility of overcoming writer's block from teacher to student after the excercise is learned and understood). Next, Oliver offers the excercise of freewriting to help open the flow of ideas. He recommends that teachers should give their students 10-15 minutes of non-stop freewriting on their writing topics. Students should refrain from pausing or editi

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

Patrick Hartwell discusses the value of teaching formal grammar by reviewing its history as a fundamental building block to the development of good writing. By determining a set of definitions for grammar Hartwell shows that the process of absorbing correct grammar usage occurs within native speakers naturally by exposure to the language; even young children are able to use complex grammatical structures with skill. Yet when sorted through the scientific lens and broken down into categories and labels the study of grammar cannot explain how learning the component rules of language will prove valuable to overall writing ability. Instead Hartwell suggests and I agree that "one learns to control the language of print by manipulating language in meaningful contexts, not by learning about language in isolation, as by the study of formal grammar" (125). Language, Hartwell says is "verbal clay, to be molded and probed, shaped and reshaped, and, above all, enjoyed" (125). So language is play dough; it is supposed to be fun; it should not be something you do because you have to, but because you want to; you do it because you like to do it; it is about process not product. What can tutors/teachers do that can encourage students to view writing not as a means to an end, but as a valuable tool of expression, a concrete manifestation of focused energy that is representative of an individual's attempt to express? This need to express is at work on us all of the time; our survival depends on it. That is not an exaggeration; a closed mouth does not get fed. By funneling our thoughts into words, even if the result is an approximation of the truth of our energetic pursuits, there is still a result. Words do work on people because people feel. Maybe some of the frustration that freshman feel is a result of the heaviness of the rulebook; certain grammar rules affect student grades, certain constraints are imposed by the teachers rubric and the teacher as well a

This article continues the idea of my previous posts - about codeswitching and language transfer in the writing of bilinguals and heritage learners. It is based upon the experiment investigating formal and informal writing samples of students who possess three languages - Basque, Spanish and English. The authors'purpose has been to explain that although traditional teaching is turned towards monolinguals and native speakers' writing as a model, the perspective of bi- and multilingual writers is different. The authors - Cenoz and Gorter -explore the nature of transfer from one language into another, codemixing and codeswitching, and come to the conclusion that these three factors characterizing bilingual students are not to be treated as separate obstacles but rather as three parts of the one whole that benefits writing while enabling students to widely use resources of different languages. The authors use the term "translanguaging" denoting by it "combination of two or more languages in a systematic way within the same learning activity", and argue that translanguaging contributes to developing and strengthening writing in both languages. The authors propose a new approach to teaching writing to the bi- and multilinguals - "focus on multilingualism" that allows "looking at the different languages of the multilingual at the same time instead of separately". Cenoz and Gorter identify the relationships between languages as complex, yet beneficial for developing writing skills. According to their point of view, multilinguals use the same strategies when writing essay or informal social network posts, yet they incorporate in their writing the elements of three languages not because of limited lexical resources, but for conveying their communicative intent, which they think is better done in a particular language out of three that they possess. That means that multilinguals and bilinguals choose language resources in dependence on communicative purposes in their writing (

This source details the author's experience of teaching a course called 'Experimental Writing' to college seniors. Using several chapters from the book Free Play by Steven Nachmanovitch, the instructor introduces the topic of play as an important element of the course. Having read the book myself I think that it is a worthy read, and it has influenced my approach to academic projects by widening my perception of my action as not just reactionary study toward a grade, but play within a field offered by the instructor where success and failure are accepted as process and there is no fixed upper limit to achievement. In other words the writing is can be thought of as a kind of 'funktionslust' a pleasure of doing, not simply an action toward an objective. To create motivation within students requires that they let go of the dire seriousness that school is associated with; school is something to be completed out of necessity not something that can offer individuals new insight to themselves, or the aspects of themselves that have been suppressed by conformity and fear. The author does not entirely endorse the use of Nachmanovitch's text in 'traditional writing classes' because the text discourages many of the elements that are at hand in the traditional approach to teaching (like writing for a letter grade). I chose to be an English major because I felt the most freedom of expression within my English classes; I was offered a choice of what topics to engage with. But increasingly specific expectations from teachers handcuffed my raw creativity. Even so, I think that an increased degree of freedom within writing classes would boost student enthusiasm. The question then is how do we increase the freedom of expression for students of basic writing, where there are necessary modes of measure for the articulation of the chosen subjects (other than simply allowing them to choose their subjects)? To what degree does the rubric shape student identity by for

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 is quite a small article, but it presents a certain interest as it connects writing with other social practices. I guess this assumption is crucial for teaching because it presupposes writing in the classroom with real-life purposes. The article also mentions interculturality and constant interaction of two languages, which is important when teaching writing to ESL students. The author is concerned about the specifics of effective transfer of literacy skills in bilinguals and heritage speakers. According to Martinez, as a result of traditional teaching, bilingual students tend to write with "conformity to rhetorical traditions in the dominant language" ("backwards literacy"), which creates certain problems with style, thoughts expression, choice of words and sentence patterns (i.e., mechanical transfer of the dominant language features into L2 writing). Therefore, it is necessary to develop "forward literacy", which accepts a non-standard way of writing ("writers carve out their own transcultural paths of expression"). In other words, writing of a bilingual or heritage learner implies constant shifts (transfers) between languages and cultures, and using the multiple resources of both languages in order to create an original pattern. The instructor's task is: (1) to identify multiple literacies (i.e. writing practices) that students possess and / or should possess in their heritage language and their dominant language; (2) to teach the students how to shift without mixing two languages. E.g. in early works of Spanish heritage learners, English norms penetrate Spanish writing: estoy the acuerdo instead of estoy de acuerdo. The shift should concern rhetorical strategies, which reflect cultural and aesthetical values of the two languages worlds, but not grammar or writing vocabulary; (3) teaching writing in the context of multiple social practices and contents While teaching writing, it is important to distinguish between positive transfer of skills already acqu

Wow, i like your article. It state purposely on how to help ESL student to write English better.

This article reviews how college freshmen's self-perception influences their transition into college life and their academic success. This relates to my research question because I am curious about how freshman transition from a typical high school mindset to a successful college lifestyle. The article discusses the many different factors that influence college freshmen's self-perception and reviews the data that has previously been found on this topic. Then the authors explain how they completed their study and discuss their findings. In the introduction of this article, the authors explain that one of the largest factors for academic success and a positive transition was a freshman's reasons for attending college. If a student had long-term goals and felt that their university was going to be a positive aspect of their life then they were more likely to be successful. I thought that this was interesting because I'm not sure how many of the freshmen in my Engl 30 section have this type of mindset. In the discussion section, the authors review their findings that students' perception of their intellectual ability and ability to make friends was a major influence on their success. Students who have a positive perception of their intellectual ability are more likely to be successful academically and socially. This was interesting to me because some of the students in Engl 30 might question their intellectual ability since their test scores were low. Lastly, the authors mention that students' perception of instructors and/or mentors as sources of support was a positive factor towards a successful transition. This made me think that maybe my Engl 30 students do not see myself and the mentor as sources of support because they are struggling in class, but if we could change that than maybe they would do better and be more successful.

I first encountered this article when taking 470 course, and this week I have looked it through thoroughly, as it seems to me that it contains some significant information concerning the nature of bilingual writing. Losey affirms that written codeswitching is significant for bilingual students as it provides opportunity for them to fully express themselves. According to the author, the writing identity of a bilingual is constructed by the constant correlation of the two language worlds; therefore, it is not only natural but also necessary for him / her to codeswitch in order to express his / her individuality. This idea correlates with the article "Heritage Language Literacy: Theory and Practice" by Chevalier, where the author considers that bilinguals do not possess the whole range of written registers because they codeswitch in the situation when monolinguals change their writing style. However, Losey does not see codeswitching as disadvantage like Chevalier does. His point of view is closer to another article "Writing back and forth: the interplay of form and situation in heritage learners' composition" that I reviewed during the previous week. The author of that article explains that the productive writing in bilingual schools implies shifts between two cultures and languages in order to create a new non-standard way of expressing one's thoughts. Losey goes even further. He does not only considers codeswitching possible in the classroom settings ("an unsurpassed opportunity for bilinguals", "a successful strategy for enhancing communication, promoting natural literacy acquisition in both languages, valuing students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds", though "its use in the classroom runs counter to linguistic and cultural norms and must be guided by an informed and sensitive instructor"), but, after analyzing writing patterns of the 47 personal letters exchanged between young individuals, he also determines the form and functions of the written codeswitching

This article describes the results of the four OLE (Optimal Learning Environment) approaches to teaching writing used at four different bilingual special education California schools. These approaches include: (1) interactive journal writing: teacher leads dialogue with the students by providing written responses to their daily journal entries. The teacher's responses serve as a model for writing as well; (2) Writers' Workshop - "students go through planning, drafting, editing, revising, final drafting, and publishing each time they produce a written product", i.e. their own class book; (3) expository writing as a process; (4) combination of brainstorm writing, model webbing or mapping the story they have just read, non-interactive journals. The authors emphasize the importance of engaging the learners into the informal creative writing process to increase the intrinsic motivation. They state that often in classes with bilingual students there is a high amount of pressure to speed the students' transition from writing in L1 to writing in L2, which triggers the students' anxiety and reluctance to write. The results of the 10-week experiment in different educational settings showed that OLE program activities significantly decrease stress and increase writing productivity. According to the article, OLE is based on "sociocultural learning theory", and makes use of task-based interactive creative activities. Students are supposed to collaborate while working at their writing (= communities of practice). Writing is considered as a continuous ever-changeable life process. It always implies dialogue (with the teacher, classmates or oneself - in case of non-interactive journals). Response The idea of interactive creative writing is beneficial both for heritage learners, and ESL learners, who often do not feel at ease while writing in L2. Having experienced difficulties in writing in the past, they tend to produce limited quantities of clichéd patterns that lack spo

I like how in your article it state what kind of studies they did. They did Interactive journal writing; Writer's Workshop; OLE; and a combination of journal writing, brainstorming and planning, and spelling practiced for individual group. I think that just using one method from here might help a lot but if a teacher use two or three methods here, then the L2 would improve even more. But i don't know...it's a good article.

This article by Dr. Janette Hughes talks about the import role poetry plays in literacy development and how multi-media uses of poetry in the classroom can further enhance and engage a students learning process. For the sake of how in depth both of these subjects are, I'm only going to discuss what Dr. Hughes says about poetry and literacy development in this article. "Paying attention to the language and rhythms of poetry helps build oral language skills…..Children with well-developed oral language skills are more likely to have higher achievement in reading and writing" (Hughes). Poetry has an elitist stereotype to it, and tends to be something kept out of middle school and high school classrooms for the most part. Some English classes may briefly touch on some of the cannons of poetry, but only focus on a traditional notion of reading the context and finding the one single meaning. As Hughes states, "The dominant model of poetry teaching, particularly for older students, has been to teach poetry through print text and to focus on finding one meaning to be dissected. In contrast, poets emphasize the importance of hearing the poem read aloud, engaging with it, and probing for deeper meaning through discussion with others" (Hughes). I feel that engagement in poetry provides tools applicable to understanding every type of text. The brevity in poetry forces your mind to work in more analytical ways, and a facilitation of this analysis with other students provides a type of engaging learning experience that can be applied to any type of text for any class. This article really fascinated me, and left me with many more questions and ideas I would like to explore regarding poetry in the classroom.

Although this article discusses getting past writer's block for creative fiction writing, I still think that some of Smolens ideas are worth mentioning. His major focus is time. Smolen suggests that writers should give themselves a minimum amount of time to write in a session--just to get ideas flowing. In addition, he suggests that writers ask themselves questions about their environment. Where do they write and what makes their writing focused or distracted because of where they write? What sorts of noise occurs that promotes or reduces the flow of ideas when composing? After each timed writing session, Smolen states that writers to leave their paper and go walk around or visit a new environment for a minimum amount of time. This will help bring in new "fresh" ideas that may help the writing process during the next session. I think Smolen's suggestions of balancing your time between writing and taking constructive breaks can be useful for moving past writer's block, especially giving yourself timed writing sessions and breaks. this gives an external structure on how to compose that may be beneficial to those who feel that they should sit all day, staring at a blank computer screen, hoping to get past their writer's block if they sit there long enough.

Nature writing This particular article deals with a post-composition era that still resides in the university. Writing is depicted as a means of a disconnection between different experiences that students often times find themselves bewildered. This goes along with the argument against writing from the stimulation of reading: writing, for example, a response to a piece of reading in an anthology might be interesting, but it does not provide the original experience for the writer. By the time something is put into words, it makes a specific connection, or a specific rhetorical stance towards that thing. Reading, then, becomes a re-interpretation of a text, not the original experience wherewith the text is from. What this paper argues, then, is to take students through the original experience of actually confronting the scene of nature itself: what is there, what is constituted, and what can be written. Traditional texts in nature writing include the following: Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac, Loren Eiseley's The Immense Journey, Joseph Krutch's The Desert Year. The course would include times dedicated to the reading of what is emphasised on style of writing, technique of writing and different elements of style. By then, not only would the students learn the value made by the originality of experience, they also learn the value that writers put into writing. It is not an exaggerating thing to say that such is the writing experienced by a writer. Peer critique is one of the crucial aspects of the course where students will give feedbacks on "perception, emotion, evaluation that includes both efferent and aesthetic considerations". At the end of the course, the value(s) in perception will be a lifelong skill, which in time develops into a tradition.

In the paragraph of "The path of multiple tools" the author introduced the idea of "the awesome juggling act" created by Mel Levine. Levine came up with this idea because he believes that the task of writing consist of constantly switching attention between multiple goals and subtasks. "The awesome juggling act" can be described as a boy who is juggling eight balls at the same time. The boy is keeping all the balls in the air at the same time ; to write you must keep all of the parts of writing in your memory while you write.

A collaborative article of Patricia McCarthy, Scott Meier and Regina Rinderer, this article explores the idea of self-efficacy, or rather a student's perception of their own self-efficacy, in relation to writing competency at the college level.They explain that students who estimate their writing abilities and effectiveness to be quite high perform accordingly, and that this holds also for students who estimate their abilities to be quite low (the Pygmalion Effect in action). While this comes as a surprise to few, these authors further explain that of a few key factors, namely perceived self-efficacy, anxiety, locus of control, and cognitive processing methods, while all affect the quality of writing produced by students, self-efficacy proved to be the strongest predictor of student performance regardless of the other conditions in their studies. Students who become used to a process of accurate and frequent self-evaluation, both of the final product AND of their abilities separate from the product, may develop a more accurate and more proactive view of their writing competence and their later work may reflect this.