Group items tagged

This article discusses the different types and the effectiveness of Credit Based Transition Programs or CBTPs. CBTPs are programs that allow high school students to take college level courses and earn college credit. Some of the programs even help the students apply and transition into college life. CBTPs are very widespread and common because in the "2002-2003 school year, 71% of public high schools reported students took courses for dual credit". The debate now, which the article focuses on, is whether or not to make CBTPs more accessible to middle and low achieving high schools. Since these programs have proved to be very beneficial and highly used, policy makers are currently discussing how to implement them in the majority of public high schools. Implementing CBTPs programs in middle and low achieving high schools would give more students the opportunity to go to and succeed in college.

interesting analysis

This article focuses on the differences in preparation for students of different ethnicities that are enrolled public school, private school, or are home schooled. The article mainly focuses on public schooling and how different students with certain precursors (grades, ethnicities, number of years in a subject) will likely fair in a college class. I would have liked the article to discuss the differences among several high school curriculums but sadly it was not that in depth.

This next article is fairly similar to the last article I posted, but this one is much more assertive and is more of a short, instructive textbook. This article/textbook contains "30 new ideas" for teaching writing, and with each individually constructed idea, your cognition automatically begins to spastically construct new tactics in approaching the students within your designated literary workshop. Some of the ideas include: require written responses to peers' writing, vocabulary building exercises, stepping away from prolixity and utilizing colloquial verbiage, constructing an email dialogue between students, encouragement of descriptive writing (sounds, emotions, sentiments, sensations etc.), establishing a "framing device," introducing multi-genre and multicultural literature to overall strengthen their syntactical horizons. Definitely another beneficial article to the workshop mentors of this English class-the reasons are very obvious. There are even anecdotal passages that share the endeavors of others who have chosen similar literary-assisting/instructing paths. So if you're interested in becoming an English teacher of any kind, add this article to your anthologized conglomerations of instructive, literary resources.

I was reading the first couple pages of your article and i like it. It seems like it will work with teaching ESL learner how to write.

This is an RSA animation of a lecture given by Sir Ken Robinson, a proponent of creativity and innovation in education (see http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/who for more information about him). This is an interesting and often humorous look at some general trends in modern public education. Though there is nothing that directly relates to teaching writing, there is much here that may contribute to the topic of failure, and to the importance of learning in social contexts. Robinson concludes that collaboration is the stuff of growth, it is our natural learning environment.

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

This is a scholarly article written by Howard Rheingold explaining the various uses of Participatory Media and social media to engage students in the writing process and to promote civic engagement. The article gives numerous examples of particapitory media being utilized to empower students and give them an investment into their work. The entire article comes from a pedagogical perspective that I found beneficial.

This is from the library's scholarly database, you will need to login to view it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article examines the reasons university students have anxiety over writing and/or confidence in their writing. I was especially interested because of the focus on genders. The authors hypothesize that female students are more likely to experience anxiety in their writing because of a difficulty in navigating the power structures that are academic discourse, and that male students are more confident in their writing than females even when there is no difference in ability. The article conducts a study of 127 college students at a public university near the Texas-Mexico border.

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.

In this article, there are 30 different ways in which this website tries to get students into their writing. Some of the ideas are probable and others not so much, but the main focus of the article seems to be relating the writing the students are doing back to the students themselves. We see in the article one idea that is really great. Number eight states to have student write on their own writing. How interesting would it be to read your own writing? Maybe not always as interesting as you would have thought? Well... how can you change that? How can you write something that you would not mind reading? These are the challenges students face, but by reading their own writing and reflecting on it, we could see a possible change in the writing being produced. Another example and method that the article shows is to have a writing buddy. Yes, I know this sounds kind of immature for college students, but in reality, I believe it would be nice to have someone that always read my works and I read theirs. You can make a friend, and you can also get a better idea of how important your writing really is.

This website/article lists, in detail, many, many (30) different ways one can teach writing. It lists exercises and methods and ideas. I don't have to explain that much of it, because it relates directly to a lot of the stuff we're learning and discussing in class.

This article by Laurie Grobman (also author of one of this week's article assignments from the course packet) describes the ways in which undergraduate participation in research and research publication contributes to increased authority and sense of authorship in undergraduate students. This authorship puts the students in discourse with their education and beyond, creating a purpose and identification with their course of study rather than making them passive receivers of it. This benefits their confidence and command of composition as well as putting them in the "driver seat", so to speak, of their participation in academia, and levels the playing field of student and "real" writing, erasing old and disadvantaging dichotomies.

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