Elizabeth+Podufaly

Elizabeth's page

September 12, 2007

First and foremost, this piece was such a relief to read after the Matsuda number! //**Definitely.**//

From Cambourne's article, I realized that learning is "contingent upon the availability of environmental factors and/or conditions." This assumes, importantly, that the student who struggles in school or with a particular subject is not inherently dumb, slow, and helpless; rather, the model believes that a lack of key conditions inhibits the learner from making the most of their potential, and that the conditions' absences are often not the learner's fault (i.e. the students aren't necessarily lazy or pathologically apathetic). I like this approach to learning because it prevents negative stereotypes and associations that not only discourage and diillusion the student's perception of their own capabilities and prospective progress, but also tends to stick to the students like a bad odor. //**Nice metaphor.**// that is, teacher's and others hear a student's name or see their academic record, immediately think that the student will be a problem, burden, or a hopeless cause, and (inadvertantly, I hope) avoid, ignore, give up on, dicourage, or psychologically or emotionally hinder the student, instead of trying to find the cause and cure of the smell (generalized, negative association). "Dumb" is a label, not a congenial and permanent quality, and we all know that labels are usually made hastily and with more prejiduce than just cause. **//So is there such a thing as a "dumb" student? Are there kids who just have a hard time learning in any way (besides the mentally disabled)? What if you have a kid that just can't seem to learn no matter what way you teach? How long to you work at finding a way that can help them learn before you give up?//**

The conditions of learning-- immersion, demonstration, engagement, expectations, responsibility, approximations, employment and response-- make sense and seem obvious (especially once given and discussed), yet, sadly, it doesnt' seem as though teachers (and parents, mentors, etc.) realize their existence, necessity, and positive outcome. Or, just as probably, the implications of these conditions on the traditional or popular teaching methods seem foreign, uncomfortable, and like a lot of extra work. //**It is absolutely true: teaching this way does require a lot of extra work. You have to be dedicated to your students' learning to take the time.**// To demonstrate more specifically what I mean, I'll list some of Cambourne's condtions and show how they're often not a part of an English curriculum....

Immersion: Although they are constatnly reading and writing, many students don't believe themselves to be readers because they aren't reading what teacher's tell them is "good" iterature. Reading isn't an either/or action. //**this is a shame, isn't it? Because most people read all the time. however, they don't always do the critical thinking that goes along with some reading--we don't put too much thought into reading the back of the cereal box. I think this is the main complaint about "literature" not being read.**//

Demonstration: Since reading isn't an eather/or but simply is, students should be encouraged to study how all sorts of literature are useful, similar and often interrelated (i.e. instead of replacing comic books with novels, teachers should encourage their students to find conneections between the tow or find a way to make the literature-- of any sort-- exciting and applicable to the students' own lives and interests). //**I think so too--they would like reading so much more if teachers can bridge these activities.**//

Expectations: teachers need to treat every student as na individual, without relying on labels to inform their behaviors, and then set expectations independent of previously formed and generated labels. I had a good friend in high school who many consiered an unintelligent trouble maker, and because of this, teachers gave up on her before they even began trying to teach her. When a new teacher came o our school who hadn't herard of her (apart from perhaps a bit of gossip) and set guidelines for both her behavior and academics (expectations of sorts because no one previously believed she could be controlled or taught) she ended up with a good grade and a new belief in her own abilities.

Employment: Too often, the readings in English classes are read, tested, and discarded. Teachers need to show students how literature is relevant and useful in real like (i.e making personal connections with text, showing how issues, especially in older texts, are still related to issues today). Same with writing. //**Isn't it weird that some teachers don't do this? How can you teach a novel without discussing WHY we read?!**//

Approximations: Students need to know that it is okay to make mistakes or struggle with concepts involved in a reading or writing assignment. Despite what many believe, reading and writing are tough activities (though also rewarding and fun once accomplished), and teachers must allow their students to work their way through assignments at their own pace with the knowledge that they won't be punished or looked down upon if they misinterpret something or perform poorly. Teachers need to encourage students to keep trying and help them discover means to do so, so that everyone can realize the joys of reading and writing.

There are a few conditions that I left out, but these are the ones I feel are most often absent from the school systems, especially in secondary educatoin.

Indeed, the practice of Cambourne's theory of learning has probably helped me the most so far in my schooling, especially the discussion and reflection (now that I think about it, I don't think I've had an English class here that wasn't discussion based). I especially liked the diddy about how discussion and reflection involves "talking your way into meaning," because I find that when I'm discussing an idea with others or just throwing ideas onto paper and sort of get going with a thought, I usually wind up spitting out new ideas or realizations about the subject that I hadn't previoiusly considered, and usually I have no idea where these ideas/realizations come from or how I came to them, only that I believe/agree with what I've said. //**This sounds like scaffolding**// //**work!**// This happens to me a lot with words too. I'll be writing, getting into the flow of the paper or story, not really thinking about what I've said or what I'm about to say, and later when I re-read what I have written, I'll find that I've used words that I didn't even know I knew, and perhaps couldn't even define if asked, but somehow they work well/correctly in the context I was using it in. I've always thought that I was weird for this or perhaps losing my memory (and regaining fragments of it) without realizing it, but considering Cambourne's explanation on how children learn to talk, my usage of unfamiliar words makes sense: sometime prior to writing, I must have been exposed to a demonstration(s) of the word, but for some reason I made the decision (Cambourne's Responsibility condition) not to use it (Engage) for a while.

September 9, 2007

Whew! I'll bet that Dr. Matsuda is one popular professor at UNH. **//Actually he's a really cool guy--I've never met him personally, but I know people who have and I've seen him in pedagogy films, and he's pretty awesome. Just not the coolest writer...//**Personally, when I wasn't rereading the same lines, frustrated and ashamed of my supposed reading comprehension abilities, trying to make sense of the esoteric references and impressive/intimidating/irritating/extensive diction, I was just trying to stay focused, as it is difficult for a student as scholastically uncouth as I to fully appreciate how effectual and explanatory sentences showered with syllables and technical terms, as demonstrated by good 'ol Mr. M., can truly be.

All sarcasm aside, I found this reading tedious and unconvincing, at least with regards to Matsuda's assertion that "the use of the term post-process in the context of L2 writing needs to be guided by critical awareness of the discursive construction process" and that "post-process needs to be understood not as the rejection of process, but as the recognition of the multiplicity of L2 writing theories and pedagogies" (abstract). Of course, it is quite possible that Matsuda argued strong cases and proved his points, and that I, admittedly confounded by chunks here and there of the article (despite rereading and making ample use of my dictionary), just failed to put two and two together to make four. //**It wasn't you--it was a tough article, even for me.**// Either way, whether my claims are justified or his supported and "proven," I'll share my criticisms, questions, considerations, and comments in hopes that one or everyone reading this will help me make sense of whatever it was I read....

My major question/qualm concerns the apparent emphasis on post-process theory (or is it a paradigm?), //**I would say neither yet...**//as it plays a substantial role in both parts of Matsuda's thesis. Though we are supposed to be applying it to L2 processes and theories, I felt like the article as a whole focused more on the earlier or original process pedagogy/paradigm: the first half dedicated to the definitions of and differences between the product paradigm (or current-traditional rhetoric) and the process paradigm, as well as the problems and criticisms amassed by process pedagogy vs. paradigm; the latter half discussing how second language theories and practices resemble, especially, the process model. I realize that matsuda wanted us to know the history of writing theory in order to understand the "discursive construction" of post-process and its correlation and application to L2 theories, but rather than making these important connections, I only feel as though I know better what the process paradigm is (I guess there's a silver lining in every cloud).

Moreover, though I understand that post-process is the "social turn" or "the shift of emphasis from cognitive issues to larger social issues" from process pedagogy (73), I don't understand what that means with respect to actually teaching writing. How does one teach or incorporate the post-process model in the classroom? What are the important characteristics of post-process rhetoric and theory? What does it mean to emphasize "larger social issues" in writing and teaching writing? And how in the world (please, please, please clue me in someone!) does post-process' discursive construction play into L2 theory? //**Did class discussion answer any of these questions for you? If you still are unsure, be sure to bring it up in class.**//

EDIT (a few minutes later): I found this more helpful in explaining post-process than I did Matsuda's piece, at least it is easier to understand and helps me (a little) to comprehend a bit more of what Matsuda is saying:

Breaking with the still-dominant process tradition in composition studies, post-process theory—or at least the different incarnations of post-process theory discussed by the contributors represented in this collection of original essays—endorses the fundamental idea that no codifiable or generalizable writing process exists or could exist. **Post-process theorists hold that the practice of writing cannot be captured by a generalized process or a "big" theory.** Most post-process theorists hold three assumptions about the act of writing: writing is public; writing is interpretive; and writing is situated. The first assumption is the commonsensical claim that writing constitutes a public interchange. By "interpretive act," post-process theorists generally mean something as broad as "making sense of" and not exclusively the ability to move from one code to another. To interpret means more than merely to paraphrase; it means to enter into a relationship of understanding with other language users. And finally, because writing is a public act that requires interpretive interaction with others, writers always write from some position or some place. Writers are never nowhere; they are "situated." //**This is helpful and clear. thanks for sharing this.**//

(from site: [|http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/titles/s99_titles/kent_process.htm] )

___

September 6, 007

//(Before I start my response to the Hairston piece, I want to apologize if my entry doesn't make a lot of sense-- I've spent the day sleeping and sweating off a fever and I'm not quite sure where or how my mind is right now.)// **//You manage pretty well despite your sickness!//** When Maxine Hairston wrote "The Winds of Change" essay in '82, she believed her profession-- teaching writing, or rhetoric and composition-- was in the first stages of a replacing the more traditional focus on the composed product with the perhaps more effective (and recent) emphasis on the writing process. Since Hairston only provided evidence and indications of the "first stages" of this paradigm shift, I have no way of specifying that now we are in this or that stage, but I do believe that, in some regards, schools and teachers have made progress in accepting and integrating the "process not product" concept into the curriculum, but in other respects, it seems that lessons stick to tradition with a stubborn resistance to change and a natural inclination to the familiar, simplistic, and concrete system of grading and evaluation. To be more specific, I've noticed that classes within the English department (I'm not quite sure what they are officially called besides "English classes"-- English curriculum, maybe?), especially those with some sort of creative element (i.e. creative writng and the poetry and prose workshops), adhere to many of what Hairston considers the new paradigm's principal features (on page 86). //**An interesting idea--something we could talk about: why do we teach creative writing so differently than "non-creative" writing? Why is the approach to each such a stark contrast?**// But a transition from old to new seems almost limited to only those in teaching or pursuing some sort of career in writing. My classes outside the English department's more contemporary bounds either consider writing, whether in essay or report form, to be an extra credit activity or a systematic practice in form, spelling, and grammar-- what Hairston accuratly descrives as "a 500-word theme of five paragraphs, each with a topic sentence" (78). In such cases you are labeled a "good writer" if you know a handful of 3+ syllable words and the appropriate usage of the semicolon. Content ranks low in the spectrum of Important Things-- this I know as true because I have, from time to time, neglected to do the assigned readings but still received high marks so long as I wrote five paragraphs, had a vague understanding of and statement about the topic, and used a thesarus for every other word. Granted, these classes are not designed to teach writing, but nevertheless, they're inadvertantly pounding it into our heads that writing is the equivalent of an exercise in diction, format, and style. I recently heard that while Alma ranks near the top, if not as the top, in nearly all subjects compared to similar schools (Albion, Calvin, Hope, etc.), we rank the lowest in wriitng. **//Isn't this weird? Writing skills at Alma are low, and it's an important problem to solve. I think many profs assign writing because they teach a course that has been labeled a quill course, but they don't really use writing for purposes other than exposition.//** The problem isn't inadequate English classes, but rather that every other class that requires written work teaches and grades papers with a traditional rubric that contradicts the methods and foci many of the English classes are trying to promote. Traditional teaching of writing is still more widely used in secondary education and in schools with open door policies because, Hairston points out, evaluating the tangible product is a lot easier than examining the intangible process.

Therein lies my biggest question: Hairston talks again and agian about examining the process and provides examples of research and projects orienting around it, but how would a regular Joe Schmoe teacher who wasn't at a rich research institute, particulary if s/he was teaching writing in a public middle or high school where funding is not exactly available for programs and classes that sway from convention? What does "examining" and "intervening in" the writing process entail? How much importance would then be placed on the final product? How would a teacher grade something that is as "intuitive" as it is logicallly organized? How would the teacher balance subjective observation of process with the objective results of products? **//Well that's more than one big question--do you feel you understand this a bit better now?//**

Before I break out into another feverish fit of disorientation and dizziness, I just want to add that stupid programs like the No Child Left Behind Act, do the new paradigm shift much more harm than good, because it forces teachers to establish some objective guidelines by which to evaluate their students. //**Stupid is right--nothing leaves more children behind...**//