Group items tagged

Luberda's essay is a preliminary overview of his experiment in applying cognitive science to writing. Luberda suggests that the most applicable elements of cognitive science for teaching writing and composition come from linguistics. He also suggests that in teaching writing and literature, students may be accustomed to learning terms, dates, facts, and test-taking, while others receive a vague understanding of literature. In light of the teaching structures he used, the writing and analytical skills the students acquired were independent of the literature in their course. In using the cognitive approach, Luberda structured writing and literature courses within the context of differentiating relations between language change and writing acquisition. In reading the positive results of Luberda's experiment, I noticed a few implications for teaching writing. One advantage of applying linguisitics and the cognitive approach is that students learn why they write the way they do and raises awareness to the writing structures they use. The other advantage is the ability for students to "say what I mean" and incorporate accuracy in their writing when communicating meaning. This would mean that even when students are intentionally manipulating writing structures within various genres, they are learning to communicate "what I mean" without being submissive to directness. There was one negative result of the experiment where a student stated "I don't believe this course has helped me improve my writing skills. In high school I was taught how to write analyze books and then write papers about them using solid grammar, intense vocab, thesis statement and a well thought out conclusion. I do not believe I learned how to improve my papers. I am still on the same level of writing as I was in high school." I find this to be interesting in relation to teaching writing because it suggests that cognitively, we strive to use writing structures differently or advance our writing by chan

"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."

This online-community-sourced interview with Sir Ken Robinson (British education adviser, author, and speaker) followed his TED talk about creativity in education. He makes some good points about the need to cultivate creativity in students in all areas of education (not just those traditionally associated with creativity, like music or painting). This is closely tied to the struggle to create motivation in the classroom and addresses an attitude more than a specific set of strategies.  He tends to talk more about math and science than language, but most of what he says can be applied to our field as well. He connects the idea of "teaching creativity" to "teaching literacy", but I would argue to achieve true literacy, you need those creative elements that are so often lost in the language classroom.

Andrea R. Olinger from the Department of Applied Linguistics at University of California, Los Angeles demonstrates "how interaction constructs discoursal identities" (273) in her article, "Constructing identities through: 'discourse': Stance and interaction in collaborative college writing." Olinger brings up an important point in this article, "that students often feel a mixture of desire for an resistance to the identities they must take on" (274). The examination of college students' writing demonstrated how these identities are "contested, desired, and resisted" (274). By now English 431 students should have seen some form of writing from their English 30 students. Thus, now we can ask ourselves as well as the English 30 students in what ways do the writer's discoursal identity resist or conform to the expectations of a college writing course? 

Becker's article discusses the various models researchers have used to blueprint the cognitive process writers use during revision. The discussion associated with these models came from Becker's inquiry on why novice writers have negative attitudes towards the revision process in comparison to more experienced writers. The goal of this research was to make explicit the most effective and efficient cognitive strategies teachers could use to help novice writers improve their revision process. Most of the models consist of evaluation skills and long-term memory associations. I find this article useful for teaching writing in the sense that it has potential apparatuses that teachers can use to motivate students to revise their work. Because revision is an important and sometimes complex part of the writing process, these models may serve useful or may serve as templates for other models to arise when applied to teaching. The important thing here is finding ways to encourage students to revise their work and examine what processes students use to motivate them to revise rather than have students assume their work is already perfect.

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 have found this article in the online library of our university, so you will have to sign in to view it. Generally I am interested in the concept of "identity" in education and the phrase "authorial identity" definitely caught my attention and I wasn't sure what it exactly meant. The authors of the article define it as "the sense a writer has of themselves as an author and the textual identity they construct in their writing". In order to explore psychology students' authorial identity in academic writing they have done two different studies and reached a common conclusion for both of them - "both studies could inform interventions to reduce unintentional plagiarism by improving students' authorial identity". It would be interesting to carry out similar research projects in departments other than psychology, e.g. science or humanities, and compare the results.

When reading student work, I often come across misspellings like "u", "cuz" or the annoying lower case i. It's crossed my mind a few times that these mistakes are because of an increasingly technology dependent world. This article discusses the links between the digital age of writing and the academic world of writing. Can one exist with the other? The author suggests that students use things like texting as another form of writing they must learn how to do, just like creative writing or science writing.

This 2010 article details the findings of a research project by Bitchener and Knoch wherein they studied the effects of corrective feedback for L2 writers. Specifically, they studied how advanced level ESL students in a university level writing class in the US improved or did not improve their accuracy with respect to the use of definite and indefinite articles as a result of different kinds of corrective feedback. The 10 week study seems to show that the accuracy of students who received explicit, meta-linguistic forms of corrective feedback improved considerably over the 10 week study. Those who did not receive corrective feedback, or who only received implicit correction in the form of circled errors with no accompanying explanation, did not demonstrate such an increase in accuracy.