David+Miller

David's page Dave Miller 9/12/07

The article presented several interesting observations of how to increase the degree of each student’s success in the classroom. In the past decades it has been obvious how the education system has been constantly revamped on every level. Stricter codes enforced by local school boards, new, more demanding core curriculums from state governments, and of course the media frenzy over recent federal legislature increasing requirements for educators. With all these attacks on the educational system occurring at once it is difficult, if not impossible, to truly observe how these changes have demonstrated an improvement in the classroom, especially over a long term basis. Theory after theory will always arise to create rhetorical paradigms and pedagogies. Teaching is as much a trial-and-error process as learning is. Different methods are more successful to certain individuals while at the same time sentencing other individuals at the same level to fail. **//Can you connect this to anything specific from Cambourne's article?//** This is the reason for the plethora of variety at the modern teacher’s repertoire. It is the only way to achieve universal success for each class of students as a whole. However because no single method works for every single student in a classroom, teachers are left to look toward new fad techniques that promise to cure the shortcomings of previous pedagogies, yet in the end fall slightly short themselves.//**Do you see Cambourne's theories as a possible "fad"? Will it become another "paradigm" that we shift into--and then out of again?**// It’s like driving on a dirt road. Imagine you have two options; you can take you trusty v6 pick-up that you’ve owned, operated, and maintained for so long that it’s ceased to be a vehicle and is more of an extension of the driver, or you can ride along in you brand new hybrid fuel-cell, four wheel drive v8 with all the bells and whistles you could imagine and never need. Now both vehicles drive satisfactorily along the road, naturally hitting its fair share of bumps along the way, but when it comes down to it it’s the newer truck with the supped up features that pulls ahead. Yet that new truck can only pull ahead so far, until it gets bogged down as the road gets less and less refined. Eventually it gets stuck, buy just in the nick of time come the next year’s model to pull ahead. As the pattern continues we find ourselves in a tougher spot each time, until at a certain point the road becomes impassable. **//An interesting analogy: so where is Cambourne in this analogy?//** This is exactly why I can appreciate what the author is attempting to do. Rather than look at the problem and discover a wall to solve it so that we can continue to truck on, the author step back and looks to see what worked before and what works now. After realizing what aspects are aiding the students a teacher can build a rubric that allows the students to succeed in their own way, rather than forcing a particular definition of success on the student. To find out what is working the author use his observations both inside and outside of the classroom. These observations, in fact, can be compared to basic principles of psychology. **//Can you name anything specific here?//** Which makes sense, instead of seeking solutions to solve a given problem, gain an understanding of why the solution to more basic problems are successful and see if the effects cannot be recreated.

Dave Miller 9/10/07

This article, though just as difficult to read as the article before, was far more successful at conveying its intentions to the reader. From this article, not only was I able to finally discern what the significance and impact of the implied paradigm shift was exactly, I was able to discover the implications and uses for the evolved methods of teaching writing. **//Probably was helpful that we had class in between, too, huh?//** Teaching writing is a tricky business in and off itself simply because it implies the activity of learning. Each individual is just that, an individual and as such is subject to unique circumstances. From the perspective of a teacher this means that every student that passes through the classroom will learn in a unique way, at a unique rate. This individuality is in fact what, I presume, gave rise to the original paradigm and was ultimately the cause of its failure. Given a group with few similarities it is logical to create similarities as a means of comparing individuals and scoring them appropriately. From this perspective the “five paragraph model” is ideal because it provides a simple, uniform medium through which each individual can be graded fairly. **//yep, that's why so many teachers still use it today.//** However, to fairly grade an individual in a uniform way is futile because each individual will respond uniquely. This of course encourages that educators wholly abandon a uniform method of instruction in favor of one that allows each individual to uniquely express their individuality. However, if each individual succeeds is successful in the creation of a truly unique work, then it becomes difficult to provide a comparison between works in order to provide a grade and measure success. Herein lays the flaw of the second paradigm. Although the process may be judged, it still inhibits unique expression of the individual by forcing that individual to submit to the conformity of production. Therefore this paradigm shift promotes a shift from supplying a uniform product to supplying a uniform process resulting in unique products. **//Yes, thus POST process comes into being.//** However in each case, the individuality of the student is limited by conformity. Clinically, each paradigm has its successes and failures, pros and cons. Naturally, educators seek to find a way of harnessing all the pros of both paradigms into one newly evolved paradigm. By introducing variety into the process instructors are able to negate the uniformity of the process, thusly allowing a greater degree of freedom resulting in unique works by the individual students. This third paradigm is effective however it ultimately fails at achieving the ideal system. As individuality is encouraged, then uniformity must be discouraged in direct relation. However without uniformity, a teacher cannot provide a value to an individual’s success, meaning a grade may not be awarded. Writing remains a wholly individual activity which produces unique results, however in order to instruct each individual how to write and become more successful at producing works, some element of uniformity must be maintained in order to measure success or failure. **//It's a quandry, isn't it?//** Therefore, it is not a combination of two paradigms in order to create a third paradigm through fusion that will guarantee success in writing instruction. Rather, a complete aversion from the first two paradigms may lead educators to a more successful method of instruction. **//So where do you see things heading now? Have we really abandoned any of the old stuff, either current traditional or process oriented? Is it possible?//**

David Miller 9/07/07

Frankly, this article served little purpose in proposing how the faults of the modern methods of instructing the humanities might be improved. The author opened with an observation that the members of any field who support unpopular and radical models which provide explanations or truths of the field are often times ignored by leaders in those fields. This causes the audience of the piece, in my opinion, to feel guilty about dismissing the article entirely, as I believe it should be. //**Hmm, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. In know you had trouble grasping the whole process theory thing, though.**// As a result of this guilt the reader is obliged to continue through the incessant complaining and nitpicky fault finding of the author. //**Can you give an example here?**// The author then banters on, describing how the current method of instruction, that is the trial-and-error method, as inadequate for the instruction of expressing ideas through writing. However, as each paragraph shares a common thread that the system is failing at serving its purpose of enlightening the masses of how one is supposed to write, paragraph after paragraph fails to cite an example of how the system might be manipulated to perform on a higher level. **//She does explain this at the end--but I'll grant you that it would be helpful if she explainged this a bit earlier.//** Furthermore, the author omits certain key points of evidence. For instance the author cites James Inkster and James Berlin who “ascribe other features to the conventional paradigm. Basing their conclusions on an analysis of repeated patterns in four well known and commercially successful texts” (Hairston, 78). I find no fault that the author attempts to support their observations and cite evidence; in fact I would encourage such an effort. My dissatisfaction arises from the fact the these “repeated patterns” are never mentioned again, or even elaborated on to inform the reader which patterns in particular are repeated. **//Ah, herein lies part of your struggle: Hairston definitely writes to an audience she believes would be familiar with their work and wouldn't feel the need to explain further. You were at a disadvantage in this.//** Finally after thoroughly bashing the traditional methods and the individuals who are so bold as to utilize these accepted and successful methods in a classroom setting, the author, after several digressions, finally moves along and enlightens the audience as to what the points of this new, improved, and much more effective paradigm. I found myself reading through the points of this new paradigm, and found that this new paradigm was in fact quite ingenious. I noticed that this new paradigm was so ingenious in fact that I could see no reason why it should not be immediately implemented into all humanities instruction courses. In fact I noticed something absolutely revolutionary about this new paradigm as the author so-calls it. This new paradigm is quite frankly in most respects identical to the old paradigm. **//You see the difference now, yes? If you still have any confusion, please come and discuss it with me.//** I could not detect any fundamental difference between the two paradigms! After all the hoopla raised by the author regarding the ineffectiveness of humanities instruction, the author is bold enough to propose that these unspecified issues be solved by simply throwing out the old system of teaching writing as a process and implementing this wholly “new” system of instruction, (and really it is quite ingenious I must admit). Writing should be taught with a specific emphasis on its very core of significance, its gestalt. When instructing one how to write one should (notice my own use of the obnoxious delaying tactics utilized by the author) teach writing as a process. After reading this article I can really think of only one way to respond the author’s great epiphany, “Well… DUH!!!!!” **//So now that we've discussed this more, do you think if you went back and read this that you would read it differently?//**