When the general public considers the subject I’m working with, what are the issues, questions or concerns that they think are important to discuss? Do these questions and concerns differ from those of the scholarly discourse community?
The general public I would be aiming at is parents because they are going to want what is best for their child’s understanding. They may ask their child’s teachers what methods of feedback they use and how students respond to it. The scholarly discourse community will already be familiar with the topic and may produce arguments on better feedback methods.
In discussions of my subject, what are some of the status quo assumptions that appear to go unsaid but nonetheless seem almost universally believed?
The most common form of response to students writing is comments on the students’ paper. Most educators believe that is the best way to give feedback to the students. This may be true but it depends on what type of comments they write.
In texts that people produce about my subject, what kinds of outcomes or results do they expect the texts to have with readers? Do writers about my subject usually expect a reader simply to consider their ideas, to believe in them strongly, to take some specific action? What?
It is hard for me to answer this question because I have not read over the articles I have found yet. I would think the scholarly writers want readers to take their argument in consideration and practice their modes of thinking. They persuade the reader with their experiment outcomes what methods should be used to get the best response out of students. Educators are the main audience for those articles and it may be beneficial to them to think about it and test them out for themselves.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Initial Thoughts on my Inquiry Project (revised)
Part I: Exploration1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your Inquiry Project.
My hope is to work on something that focuses around students attitudes towards teacher comments on their papers.
2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
I have had certain reactions to my teachers’ comments on my paper. At times I am left confused on what I did wrong to receive the grade I got. Other times, I thought I fulfilled the assignment but got comments on areas that were not part of the initial assignment.
3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
I feel that most students can relate to the topic. I also am aware that teachers look for different things when grading and it can be hard to please them all. I think that teachers should provide the students with what they are going to be looking for in the final project before the students start. This way they know what is expected of them and will understand their feedback better.
4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
The knowledge I already have about this topic is personal experience and observations that I have had throughout my school years. My main questions about the topic are:
-What are students’ reactions to teachers’ feedback?
-What methods of feedback do students respond the best to?
- What types of comments should teachers be putting on their students’ papers?
I am most curious about how teacher comments change the perception the student has on their work. Also, what they would want to see instead. I am really interested in researching that because I plan to be an English school teacher and would want to be helpful to my students in any way I could. I would like to see what they prefer with feedback.
5. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?
For education studies: I believe that education theorists will hold the most knowledge about this topic. They could have studies that they performed with students and teachers. Also, they could use information gathered by their years of teaching and provide their scholarly argument on what teachers should be doing with feedback and learn from their mistakes.
For communication studies: They may be more concerned with how feedback that is not understood by the student may change the teacher-student relationship.
For research studies: They can correlate the results of different forms of feedback to see which promote better student attitudes and which they disregard.
6. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?
I could perform a survey with my peers. I could produce a questionnaire for my English professors to see what form of feedback they use and why they do it.
Part II: Focusing Write an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.
What type of feedback methods do students appreciate and respond to the most?
My hope is to work on something that focuses around students attitudes towards teacher comments on their papers.
2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
I have had certain reactions to my teachers’ comments on my paper. At times I am left confused on what I did wrong to receive the grade I got. Other times, I thought I fulfilled the assignment but got comments on areas that were not part of the initial assignment.
3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
I feel that most students can relate to the topic. I also am aware that teachers look for different things when grading and it can be hard to please them all. I think that teachers should provide the students with what they are going to be looking for in the final project before the students start. This way they know what is expected of them and will understand their feedback better.
4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
The knowledge I already have about this topic is personal experience and observations that I have had throughout my school years. My main questions about the topic are:
-What are students’ reactions to teachers’ feedback?
-What methods of feedback do students respond the best to?
- What types of comments should teachers be putting on their students’ papers?
I am most curious about how teacher comments change the perception the student has on their work. Also, what they would want to see instead. I am really interested in researching that because I plan to be an English school teacher and would want to be helpful to my students in any way I could. I would like to see what they prefer with feedback.
5. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?
For education studies: I believe that education theorists will hold the most knowledge about this topic. They could have studies that they performed with students and teachers. Also, they could use information gathered by their years of teaching and provide their scholarly argument on what teachers should be doing with feedback and learn from their mistakes.
For communication studies: They may be more concerned with how feedback that is not understood by the student may change the teacher-student relationship.
For research studies: They can correlate the results of different forms of feedback to see which promote better student attitudes and which they disregard.
6. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?
I could perform a survey with my peers. I could produce a questionnaire for my English professors to see what form of feedback they use and why they do it.
Part II: Focusing Write an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.
What type of feedback methods do students appreciate and respond to the most?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
"Professing Multiculturalism"
This article discussed the ways in which multiculturalism could be used in teaching composition. I saw this as a way in which a writer may be heard, to connect with Royster's article. I believe this because it will give the teachers a better understanding of their students' writing and it will give people in general a better perception of works from writers that are from various backgrounds. The rhetoric everywhere would be better understood if one knows where the writer was coming from and how things work in the area they come from. In the article it shows how an "educated American" reacts to someone that comments on her work in a bad way and how another writer from a different area gets told his work is bad. It was just because the writer from another area, Dreiser, took on a different style and approach to writing then what one is normally used to in America so they automatically deemed it as a bad piece of work. Students have this issue in their classroom as well.
Students face the same issues at times that most writers face when they were brought up in a different area and present their work to an American. Lu decides that they need a model of what is considered real and compare the students work to that. Have the students perform exercises with "real' works and dissect what makes it a good appear so they can utilize it in their own. Lu termed the approach, "error analysis" they would imitate what they found. Provided to the students was an example of a paper with easy identifiable errors and asks the students how they would fix it. "I look for styles which are also more conducive to my attempt to help the writer to negotiate a new position in relation to the colliding voices active in the scenes of writing" (494). It shows the use of style and the writers own perception of what standard written English is supposed to look like. Also, by sharing the responses it gives the students a variety of ways to modify one error.
Students face the same issues at times that most writers face when they were brought up in a different area and present their work to an American. Lu decides that they need a model of what is considered real and compare the students work to that. Have the students perform exercises with "real' works and dissect what makes it a good appear so they can utilize it in their own. Lu termed the approach, "error analysis" they would imitate what they found. Provided to the students was an example of a paper with easy identifiable errors and asks the students how they would fix it. "I look for styles which are also more conducive to my attempt to help the writer to negotiate a new position in relation to the colliding voices active in the scenes of writing" (494). It shows the use of style and the writers own perception of what standard written English is supposed to look like. Also, by sharing the responses it gives the students a variety of ways to modify one error.
Monday, October 15, 2007
"When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own"
The article by Jacqueline Jones Royster was pretty confusing to me. I know her main emphasis was cross-boundary discourse and why it has failed and what can be done to make it possible. Subjectivity was her main tactic of making it possible, "subjectivity as defining value pays attention dynamically to context, ways of knowing, language abilities, and experience, and by doing so it has a consequent potential to deepen, broaden and enrich our interpretive views in dynamic ways as well" (611). One way to do that is by voicing our opinions and stories and being heard. "The call for action in cross-boundary exchange is to refine theory and practice so that they include voicing as a phenomenon that is constructed and expressed visually and orally, and as a phenomenon that has import also being a thing heard, perceived, and reconstructed" (612).
The three scenes used in the article depict different forms of 'subject'. They work together to show how we need to change our communication style to be better understood in more areas then our own community. Then, Royster goes on to explain strategies of doing so. One of the scenes shows the importance of voice. Being heard but not understood but it is sill better to speak. Too often we rely on others to do the talking for us, normally people in authoritative roles and/or experts. We can speak at any time and it may be perceived but how do we listen to others? How do we show others that we are engaged in what they are saying? Most times when I am in a conversation I can tell by the person's body language whether they care about what I am saying or not. It is one thing to speak and another to be heard, we have to find a way to do both.
The three scenes used in the article depict different forms of 'subject'. They work together to show how we need to change our communication style to be better understood in more areas then our own community. Then, Royster goes on to explain strategies of doing so. One of the scenes shows the importance of voice. Being heard but not understood but it is sill better to speak. Too often we rely on others to do the talking for us, normally people in authoritative roles and/or experts. We can speak at any time and it may be perceived but how do we listen to others? How do we show others that we are engaged in what they are saying? Most times when I am in a conversation I can tell by the person's body language whether they care about what I am saying or not. It is one thing to speak and another to be heard, we have to find a way to do both.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Bizzell tells us "What We Need to Know about Writing...
I really liked this article because it merged two methods into one to create a valid and better understanding of the writing process. She did not choose one or the other and then bad talk them or say one was better, like some other articles we've read. Bizzelll chose to integrate the inner-directed mode of thinking and outer-directed to come to a conclusion on composition studies. Inner directed people are concerned with the thought process while writing and having thoughts before being in a social setting. The outer directed people thinking that thoughts come from social settings, people can influence them or you can take a stand. It was made clear that everyone comes to a consensus that it takes language to develop thoughts. This corresponds with the idea that each discourse community has their own language, ways of doing things and rules to follow. This is what makes them a group, the common characteristics they share, there are many discourse communities and people can belong to more than one. They just need to know what makes them apart of one or how to be part of one.
The inner directed theorists have a 4 stage model of developing language. 1. Individual, 2. Experience, 3. Society and the last one being the Writing situation. With an isomorphic model as Bizzell puts it, we can connect these stages with the outer directed thoughts and get the importance of what we need to know about writing. Inner directed theorists think that organizing ones thought can be taught, with their stage models. "Once students are capable of cognitively sophisticated thinking and writing, they are ready to tackle the problems of a particular writing situation" (390). They think that altering info to fir the thoughts of its reader is not bad because it does not change the point of the paper, it is just worded differently.
In contrast, the outer directed theorists think that social context help shape and condition thoughts. This sis something that cannot be taught it should be an innate habit. They think that no one can teach the rules of a discourse community because one needs to be part of it in order to truly understand it. The students are already placed in a discourse community of the school and the one they were born in and when writing a paper they may be unaware they are entering another one.
The article continues to go on and use Flower and Hayes model of the cognitive processes to show what they mean. Flower and Hayes are inner direct theorists. The fact that they use Protocol analysis as their tool to search is a problem with in itself because it is not accurate because writing is something that is not scientific. Flower and Hayes model lacks credibility because it "does not tell us how to proceed through the composing process, but only that in proceeding, there are certain sub processes, we must include if we want to compose successfully" (394). They answer the 'why' but not 'how' part of the process. To make student writers and see how they go about doing something they need to be gaining it through social context and we need to put them in situations where they are tested. This is how the outer detected models come into play. "What's missing here is the connection to social context afforded by recognition of the dialectical relationship between Thought and language. We can have thoughts for which we have no words, I think, but learning language, though it doesn't exactly teach us to thinking, teaches us what thoughts matter" (395) I agree with this quote because it is true and I know that through experience. Vygotsky's notion of he mind and how it works also suggest that we need the inner and outer models to understand it. The translating and planning aspect of Flower and Hayes model should not be separated, as they have it but connected and influenced by society. When readers are reading a piece of work they connect to it on a social level, they look at the experiences to relate to the character etc. The students cannot fake to be part of the discourse community as Bartholomae states it, they need to understand the discourse community before writing for them.
Flower and Hayes spoke about goals and they stem from knowledge, but the bigger question is however does the knowledge come from?...Answer: experience, society, others. The problem then is that poor writer cannot create goals because they lack knowledge on the discourse community they are writing for. Poor writers need to be taught the conventions of discourse communities. "if language using isn't rule governed in this sense, however, it still may be regular-that is, we may be able to group situations likely to share a number of language-using features. But to do this is to describe the conventions of discourse communities" (405).
To do this we need a "hidden curriculum" as Bizzell put it. We need to open their eyes to other communities without denying their own they already have. Once students are not apart of the community they are automatically perceived as wrong. For example, "The result for students who don't share the school's preferred world views is either failure or deracination" (407). Teachers need to focus on the real world and teach students the conventions of it.
The inner directed theorists have a 4 stage model of developing language. 1. Individual, 2. Experience, 3. Society and the last one being the Writing situation. With an isomorphic model as Bizzell puts it, we can connect these stages with the outer directed thoughts and get the importance of what we need to know about writing. Inner directed theorists think that organizing ones thought can be taught, with their stage models. "Once students are capable of cognitively sophisticated thinking and writing, they are ready to tackle the problems of a particular writing situation" (390). They think that altering info to fir the thoughts of its reader is not bad because it does not change the point of the paper, it is just worded differently.
In contrast, the outer directed theorists think that social context help shape and condition thoughts. This sis something that cannot be taught it should be an innate habit. They think that no one can teach the rules of a discourse community because one needs to be part of it in order to truly understand it. The students are already placed in a discourse community of the school and the one they were born in and when writing a paper they may be unaware they are entering another one.
The article continues to go on and use Flower and Hayes model of the cognitive processes to show what they mean. Flower and Hayes are inner direct theorists. The fact that they use Protocol analysis as their tool to search is a problem with in itself because it is not accurate because writing is something that is not scientific. Flower and Hayes model lacks credibility because it "does not tell us how to proceed through the composing process, but only that in proceeding, there are certain sub processes, we must include if we want to compose successfully" (394). They answer the 'why' but not 'how' part of the process. To make student writers and see how they go about doing something they need to be gaining it through social context and we need to put them in situations where they are tested. This is how the outer detected models come into play. "What's missing here is the connection to social context afforded by recognition of the dialectical relationship between Thought and language. We can have thoughts for which we have no words, I think, but learning language, though it doesn't exactly teach us to thinking, teaches us what thoughts matter" (395) I agree with this quote because it is true and I know that through experience. Vygotsky's notion of he mind and how it works also suggest that we need the inner and outer models to understand it. The translating and planning aspect of Flower and Hayes model should not be separated, as they have it but connected and influenced by society. When readers are reading a piece of work they connect to it on a social level, they look at the experiences to relate to the character etc. The students cannot fake to be part of the discourse community as Bartholomae states it, they need to understand the discourse community before writing for them.
Flower and Hayes spoke about goals and they stem from knowledge, but the bigger question is however does the knowledge come from?...Answer: experience, society, others. The problem then is that poor writer cannot create goals because they lack knowledge on the discourse community they are writing for. Poor writers need to be taught the conventions of discourse communities. "if language using isn't rule governed in this sense, however, it still may be regular-that is, we may be able to group situations likely to share a number of language-using features. But to do this is to describe the conventions of discourse communities" (405).
To do this we need a "hidden curriculum" as Bizzell put it. We need to open their eyes to other communities without denying their own they already have. Once students are not apart of the community they are automatically perceived as wrong. For example, "The result for students who don't share the school's preferred world views is either failure or deracination" (407). Teachers need to focus on the real world and teach students the conventions of it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Synthesis Of Bartholomae and Flower & Hayes
I synthesised Flower and Hayes into Bartholomae's ideas in my Bartholomae response. I found that they all seem to agree that writing is a process and what matters is not the final text but how the author got to that final product. It was stated in both articles that "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.
However, I feel that the writers disagree on where the invention aspect comes in during the process. Bartholomae feels that Flower and Hayes take invention out of the active writing process and that is a problem. His argument is due to that we see the product in text from the author not from his mind. We have no ideas as readers what the author's original ideas were and the process he went through to transform them from thoughts to text. Flower and Hayes Cognitive process demonstrates that the plans of the paper happen before the actually composing of it, I agree with that. One always has an idea or thought in mind of what they want to say but how to say it is what involves research and thinking. They argue on where the invention stage lies, for Flower and Hayes it is in the Task enviroment, for Batholomae it is in the active writing process.
However, I feel that the writers disagree on where the invention aspect comes in during the process. Bartholomae feels that Flower and Hayes take invention out of the active writing process and that is a problem. His argument is due to that we see the product in text from the author not from his mind. We have no ideas as readers what the author's original ideas were and the process he went through to transform them from thoughts to text. Flower and Hayes Cognitive process demonstrates that the plans of the paper happen before the actually composing of it, I agree with that. One always has an idea or thought in mind of what they want to say but how to say it is what involves research and thinking. They argue on where the invention stage lies, for Flower and Hayes it is in the Task enviroment, for Batholomae it is in the active writing process.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Inventing the University Response
This article was written by David Bartholomae and to me, it was difficult to understand. The main bulk of it focused on student writers and how their work can be influenced if they act as part of the discourse community of their audience. It was stated that it is hard for students to take on the authoritative role in the papers and that is due to the fact that they may not feel like an expert on the issue they are talking about. However, Bartholomae says that they do not have to, they just have to act as they do. And in doing so, it will provide them the opportunity to explore this new discourse community. If they turn away all the thoughts of the outside communities and focus on the discourse community they are writing for, their papers will be so much better. First and foremost they will be aimed towards the people interested in the topic and it will be written int heir language. Bartholomae said a good place to start for this would be to create a commonplace.
A commonplace is "a statement that carries with it its own necessary elaboration" (pg. 626). This will give the audience something be be curious about and the writer will then have something to explain. "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.
One of the issues presented in the article was the problem of not feeling apart of the discourse community one is writing for. This happens a lot in school because of the assignments given. Teachers assign things that require students to be interested what those above them do but not actually be apart of it. So writing for the teacher requires them to be placed in an academic community and most times they just imitate what they see and know and don't really discover anything. By acting as a part of this discourse community they are taking in certain elements and this allows them to take o n the authoritative role that they need to make their paper memorable.
A commonplace is "a statement that carries with it its own necessary elaboration" (pg. 626). This will give the audience something be be curious about and the writer will then have something to explain. "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.
One of the issues presented in the article was the problem of not feeling apart of the discourse community one is writing for. This happens a lot in school because of the assignments given. Teachers assign things that require students to be interested what those above them do but not actually be apart of it. So writing for the teacher requires them to be placed in an academic community and most times they just imitate what they see and know and don't really discover anything. By acting as a part of this discourse community they are taking in certain elements and this allows them to take o n the authoritative role that they need to make their paper memorable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)