Group items tagged

For the past few weeks in this class I have generated all of my focus on the identity of the students in Enlish 30 workshops. After reading the article, "Exploring teacher-writer identities in the classroom: Conceptualising the struggle" I a new question has stemmed: how do teacher's identity as writers affect students' progress in academic progress? Authors, Teresa Cremin and Sally Baker from the Department of Education of The Open University suggest "that teachers' development as writers has the potential to enrich writing pedagogy and impact positively on young writers." The idea of teachers writing alongside their students is in my opinion highly valuable because students and teachers have the opportunity to experience the writing process together. In previous articles I have read that relatability between students and instructor are essential to the learning environment. If instructors are constantly writing alongside their students trying to establish/re-establish their identity in academic writing, students can learn easily learn how to do the same through "shared challenges" (9). While English 431 students cannot use this strategy because members of their English 30 workshops come from different sections of English 130 we can attempt to produce similar assignments alongside our students. For example, inquiry assignments are a common goal in most English 130 classes. Similarly, English 431 students must write an inquiry essay. English 431 students could incorporate their progress into the workshop by showing the English 30 students what they have done so far, why they are asking certain questions, how they did something, etc.

This article challenges the idea that there is a binary distinction between academic writing and an author's identity. He argues that identity is always present in writing and that it is impossible to separate one from the other. As such, it is important for teachers to help students understand the role that identity plays in academic writing. For example, students must understand that the presence of identity is not tied to the presence of the pronoun "I." Instead, he advises teachers to show students that identity in academic writing involves connecting passion, point of view, and experience with research, evidence, and analysis. He finishes by pointing out that researchers dedicate their lives to their fields because of their identities, not in spite of them. In the same way, students must find a field of study that fits their own interests, so that they can produce meaningful writing.

apparently the link I provided is wrong. This should be the correct link. Sorry for the error. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.mantis.csuchico.edu/eds/detail?vid=8&hid=23&sid=cd495c58-13e5-4797-b3c8-a7e279a3685e%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=20913663

The author of this article explores the writer identity of a college ESL student in order to understand how embedded ideologies and power relations shape understanding of writer identity. The research method is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The author presents the definitions of three important terms before proceeding to the analysis (identity, traditional formal discourse, and expressivism), where they are frequently used, to help the reader to understand them better. In the end, she comes up with concrete and practical implications for teaching. She recommends strategies for working with writers that are designed to encourage rather than silence the multicultural voices in our communities. Also, she suggests varying the types of assignments instructors give, using a process approach and discussing the sociopolitical implications of language use with students in order to overcome language policies that can work against ESL students. Unfortunately, you will have to log in as a member to view this article. It can also be found in Chico State's e-library.

This is a video I found on YouTube discussing freshman composition. The video's main focus is to get the students' perspective on the class and to discover what it is that they are wanting to get out of the class and how they view the class in general. The students that were interviewed explained how it is hard to be themselves in their writing and they get caught up in trying to make their writing cater to what the teacher wants. One student, discussing her writing, says she feels she has to "alter it to fit the teacher" and that in class, they aren't writing for themselves but writing "for the teacher." The video goes into detail about the purpose of freshmen composition, it gives examples of all sorts of paper assignments and guidelines that the teacher wants to be followed. Students were then interviewed on their perspectives and noted that the guidelines were helpful and kept them on track. Others felt it could be a little stifling and hard to be themselves in a paper. The video went on to explain how writing is different from any other class because it is an example of the students' own identity, their ideas. There's a sense of vulnerability to it that is not seen in other classes like math or history for example. I found this to be interesting, I wish the video had gone into a little more depth but I liked seeing the freshmen's perspectives. It would have been better if more students were interviewed too. Definitely something worth checking out though!

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!

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 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 author of this article uses the critical perspectives of Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of language and Lev Vygotsky's theory of language learning to examine the polyphonic texture of writing workshops, the dialogic classroom, the teacher's role as writer and authority figure, and the student's search for voice and role. So, she decides to participate in and observe (two students in particular) an introductory composition class in order to explain the polyphonic texture of workshops. In the end, she concludes stating that "we must resist reductive descriptions of our students' development as writers. (…) each writing workshop will compose a different "polyphony" of disparate elements which each student will appropriate and reshape in different configurations" (171). Unfortunately, you will have to log in as a member to view this article. It can also be found in Chico State's e-library.

I've decided to go in a different direction than the posts I have been submitting on diigo; however, where our research starts is certainly not where it finishes. I decided to approach the dynamics of voice and style and its relationship with "good writing." Moving along- This article directly engages in explaining "what makes good writing?" and how teachers view this complex question. Teachers alike analyze students' writing in very, very different ways and all hold their own literary interpretations in accordance to their curriculum. There is also much emphasis on "questioning a standardized writing style," "procedures and participants," and a variety of methodological approaches. There is also a list comprised of 31 perceptions on what establishes writing as "good." There is also much emphasis on the dynamics of structure, clarity, purpose, voice, and correctness. Near the end, there is an evaluation of controversy of a many statements revolving around "good writing", as well as "implications for the classroom." This is definitely a resourceful article for anyone endeavoring literary mentoring, and/or teaching of any kind. The diagrams are very concise and comprehensive, and above all, they are applicable to our instructive environments.

This article is explaining in detail the differences in cultural factors of education between North American students and Chinese students (both college level). Some of the major factors discusses are Confucianism, communism, behavior reform, authority, and organization. The article explains the differences in expectations between the two cultures. Although it is not focused on the specifics of writing, it takes a deeper look into ESL learning as a whole for Chinese students. I think that every student aspiring to become a teacher should read this article. It is only eight pages, but it answers a lot of questions about Chinese students that might arise.

In this article, President of Teaching That Makes Sense, Steve Peha shares his views, methods, philosophy, and applications of teaching writing to others. He addresses questions like "how do teachers achieve the best practice" and "what is the best practice for writing instruction?" Steve also has incorporated a chart that dichotomously sorts the attributes of the quality, process, strategies, reading-writing connection, philosophy, management and forms of writing. He also includes his "Six Traits" of evaluative criteria for assessing a variety of genres of writing. His arguments are quite applicable and logical, and his instructive guide is considerably pragmatic and "easy to follow." For anyone endeavoring to assist and critique others' writing on an academic plain will find this article to be of assistance. Even if there is a disagreement on some of the material, it is arranged in a way that can be slightly altered and still beneficially applicable.

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 article addresses the importance of the student perspective in shaping and changing the educational structure of the classroom. Though this article does no explicitly address writing,it can be assumed writing is a manner in which we gain insight into the student perspective. The article examines various pedagogical perspectives in which authorization of the students perspective could best develop. The author address the traditional student-teacher relationship as that of a power relationship.However, in these power relationships there is no place for listening, because to truly listen warrant a response to what is being heard. All to often, the classroom is not a forum for open dialogue, therefore there is really very little listening going on. The student can become lost in this environment without a voice, diminish any authority that would make him/her an better writer.

Kimberly De Vries writes about the differences in writing between Chinese students and American students and the expectations of Western academic institutions. She compares Western writing to "mathematical plainness" and argues that there is a cultural bias that exists. De Vries writes, "My experience with American writing practice has led me to conclude that in America, clarity depends not so much on using a particular form, but rather using the form expected by the reader. Thus clarity is entirely dependent on cultural expectations..." (1). This article was interesting to me because I have several Asian students in my workshop. I'm trying to understand the motives behind some of the errors they make while writing. It's difficult because much of the research deals with wether they're using their L1 to help organize their thoughts and simply translating them into L2 (which usually results in a complete lack of clarity. In fact, at times I didn't know what whole sentences meant) or writing by using L2 only. De Vries also relies on research by Robert Kaplan who has documented the effects of culture on writing practices. De Vries writes, "Kaplan contended that writing teachers needed to understand that culture produces different styles of argument, rather than flawed thinking. If we are not looking for it, we may miss an unfamiliar pattern of argument just as we may miss an unfamiliar sound in a foreign language" (3). De Vries believes that American scholars value a certain "style" of academic writing -- a style that represents only a small part of all the writing that goes on in the world today. "As this work goes on, we now begin to see that many characteristics of 'good' writing that were once perceived as universally true, are actually very much influenced by culture" (6).