Scott+Casey

Due Sept. 10, 2007 - Journal #3: Cambourne

Of the three articles, I believe I was able to get the most out of this one. Some very solid ideas are presented here, and the points made by Cambourne are certainly worth mentioning.

Cambourne establishes his ideas under a foundation with which I can wholeheartedly believe; a student is not incapable if no markable sign of learning is apparent. Low grades do not always correlate to low aptitude or intelligence. A child's ability to learn could possibly be outside the realm of traditional education; that is, lessons are not designed with the child in mind.

That is not to say that education as a whole is flawed. Without spending entirely too much time, effort or energy, the best an educator can do is make the information being presented relevant to the students' lives. //**How can an educator do this--make info relevant to their lives--without taking time and effort? is this a reason for sticking with the old ways? How time consuming is it to be inventive and find new ways to approach material?**// With a practical base and realistic situations, even the most abstract concepts can be analyzed if they can be put in a relatable context.

As with the previous two, the article, of course, focuses on language learning. The several steps (immersion, demonstration, engagement, etc.) work hand-in-hand with one another and, at all times, a certain step is happening with at least one other simultaneously. For example, engagement occurs whenever the child is awake and physically active. During this engagement, the child would immerse itself in other steps, like in making approximations. //**Right--hard to be immersed if not engaged and vice versa.**//

Cambourne considers engagement the most important step, and he states four special criteria. Being able to associate the lesson with real life, being free from anxiety, knowing it can be actually learned and having respect for the educator are all important for acquiring language knowledge. //**Do you agree? Is learning impossible if a student isn't engaged? Can they learn as a sort of absorption? For example, small children learn to talk just by being around language users--they aren't necessarily paying close attention and working at learning. Could other subjects be taught this way?**//

I hadn't considered language learning in this way before, but this article got me to think about language learning from a different perspective. As someone who will base the entirety of his curriculum on language acquisition, this article influenced me. I know that, as a German teacher, I would be utilizing language acquisition with students of a completely different age group than young children, but I find principles from this article that could relate to my future profession. One of the important criterion that Cambourne mentions, ensuring practicality and usability, would be particularly difficult if either the school or the students do not have the connections or financial ability to visit a German-speaking country, for example. It would be difficult for younger students to imagine, say, twelve years from their first year of high school, using German in a government or business setting, so using this as a potential motivator would be difficult. //**Yep--studies show that it is virtually impossible to become a fluent language user without being immersed in a culture that uses the language. Until that point, one is not usually considered fluent.**//

To keep students involved in the language learning process would be my responsibility. Making sure the lessons are engaging and important might be difficult for the unmotivated, but I'm open for any teaching strategies available regarding modern language pedagogy.

Sept 9, 2007 - Journal #2: Matsuda

Matsuda provides a well-documented history on certain terms in area of writing pedagogy. As Matsuda provides detailed descriptions of such terms as "current-traditional rhetoric," "process," and particularly "post-process", he explains how and why these terms are used. As his argument goes, while using these terms helps to establish familiar generalities, they are a gross oversimplification of the history in general. As Matsuda states,"much of the popular history of L2 writing also resulted from the kind of discursive construction process that overlooked certain historical complexities for the sake of unity and coherence" (75). //**So how does this labeling of an entire set of beliefs as a theory, this "gross oversimplification," affect how we approach teaching writing? How would it affect how you would respond to a student in the WC who brings in a paper? Does it matter what we call these theories?**//

The term "post-process" is discussed rather extensively. The pin-pointing of a "process era" (without which there logically could not be a "post-process era") is difficult within itself. Though, if any period at all could be distinguished as a beginning for process pedagogy, it would be the late 1970s (p. 77). Matsuda concludes his discursive history with stating that the use of "post-process" in describing pedagogical history is a misnomer, but only for now. This term could be used further in the future, he supposes, as the field of L2 writing becomes increasingly more complex. It seems plausible, as speculation on a theme like writing pedagogy is very difficult. //**Why do you think it's difficult to label a pedagogy in the midst of its use? Is this the reason for labeling a period "post" something? Is that why we're "post-process"? What do you think Matsuda would label this era if it wasn't "post"?**//

I would agree with Matsuda's points on the usage of such terms as being oversimplifications. Certain academic findings produced within one era could, logically, foreshadow an upcoming era, one where the previously-expressed ideas are more universally accepted. However, as a whole, these terms are used as reference points which relate to specific periods of time.

Sept. 5, 2007 - Journal #1: Hairston

While reading this article, my mind kept flashing back to my English classes back in high school. As I would read a passage regarding Thomas Kuhn's theories and research, I would find myself relating them, with varying degrees of accuracy, to English 9 way back when. The article as a whole successfully challenged my beliefs on how one should learn how to write.

I'll try to write this as a student potentially going into teaching English or something along those lines as, perhaps, I might end up going down that path. The assertion that marking every spelling and grammatical error is a poor method of handling writing education is one that has challenged my beliefs quite greatly. Through high school, this is how my papers were marked - without much thought relating to actual content. As a teacher, it would seem only logical, the way I've been handled, to find this an acceptable measure. At first, it seemed incorrect to me that marking mistakes wouldn't help, but - now that I think about it - the article is correct. With this method of checking papers, my writing style, my vocabulary or grammatical structure has not changed drastically between high school and now. //**It's strange, isn't it, that even as students we can get so used to a way of doing things that we don't even realize ourselves that things aren't working, much less from a teacher's point of view.**// If anything school-related has improved my English grammar and writing style, it would be not within the English classroom, but in the German classroom. Learning another language actually changed my writing and even my speech.

All of the methods described on page 82 (of unsuccessful fixes to problems about teaching writing) are ones I remember being used on me in high school. Writing labs, individual instruction, computer assistance and freeform writing were all experimented with, with various degrees of success.

I don't mean to sound as though I've completely abandoned everything I was tought before, as this article's intention might be. After all, it is difficult to completely let go of any belief that has been in one's life for so long, especially through the important period of childhood. Call me a traditionalist, but I still find at least some merit in correcting individual mistakes, as persistent, determined students will take note of these and correct their grammar in that way.//**The idea, though, is that this is not the ONLY part of teaching writing, but only one part of it. It used to be the only thing taught, and they have realized that there is much more that goes into good writing.**//

In terms of actual writing - regarding flow of thought, expression of ideas - that is a skill that comes with exposition and practice. Writing that is not expository or wholly informative is something that is expressed emotionally, not through formulas or charts or the like. As such, as in art, there is only so much education, in its traditional form, can do to improve actual skills. //**As Cambourse says, we need to be immersed in something to learn it--becoming a good writer requires doing a lot of reading and writing and takes time.**// Just the same, more observable aspects of writing, as vocabulary, sentence structure and grammar couldn't do a great deal of harm in trying to improve a student's writing.