I'm going to be honest. When I initially began reading Noden's ideas about imitating versus plagiarizing, I was a bit skeptical. I asked myself how I could teach students the difference and even wondered if there was a difference. How do you teach students that it is okay to imitate without being sure that you can make it completely clear that this does not mean that it's acceptable to copy? Noden admits that the task of imitating rather than plagiarizing is a dangerous one. Luckily, I continued reading with an open mind and found that Noden's ideas are fantastic.
Noden writes that when imitating a text, it is useful to model your writing after the writing of others in terms of structure. The way to avoid plagiarism in classrooms is to encourage students to use the structure of another writer while changing the content to original ideas from their own thoughts and experiences. Noden presents several approaches to this task, of which I will only discuss a few. The concept of imitating structure and changing content, as I mentioned before, is actually called the Hamill Approach.
I enjoyed reading most about the Van Gogh Approach. In this approach, students are taught to use writer's voices in their writing. I think that this approach could be used in many different ways in teaching in an English classroom. Noden uses the voices of Edgar Allen Poe and a newspaper reporter to tell the story of Humpty Dumpty as examples. This idea could also be used with authors such as Shakespeare. After or during teaching a unit on Shakespeare or after reading one of his plays, students could be taught about voice and tone. As an exercise, students could be instructed to write something in the voice of Shakespeare. To continue the lesson and to help students find their own writer's voice, they could write the same story or essay in their own voice, which ties to another of Noden's strategies, "Search for a Personal Voice."
Noden provides other ideas such as imitating poetic sentences, which I believe could be a great exercise. Additionally, he suggests doing some research about plagiarizers, which I also think could be valuable when practicing these types of imitation lessons.
As always, Anderson is beyond helpful in his book, Mechanically Inclined. I found his outline to be a very helpful tool in lesson planning because he really knows how to cover all of his bases and organize all that needs to be taught in these lessons. The idea of an operator's manual that contains seven sections that summarize and detail how to teach students how to fix their common errors really seems to be a good way to target and solve writing issues. Anderson is also very skilled at teaching teachers how to keep grammar fun by suggesting visual and interactive games such as a "sentence smackdown." I also really love that Anderson focuses on teaching students to find things out for themselves, such as with the search for two-word sentences.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
"Recess on a Page" and Writing on the Walls
In chapter 3 of his book, Mechanically Inclined, Jeff Anderson writes that composing text is the most important activity that students can do. Anderson's main suggestion for allowing students to write is to implement writing journals into the class. He fully details the sections and content that should be present in the students' journals. Though I thoroughly enjoyed his description of all of these sections, I want to spend the majority of this time discussing the first section of the journal and how using this method affects students.
The first section of the journal should simply be for writing. Anderson says that this should be the largest section in the journal and that it should never be corrected by an instructor. It is a safe place for the student to document their thoughts and freely write. The writing section is described as "recess on a page." I really like Anderson's thoughts about providing a writing journal for students. He writes that teachers can allow for personal reflections in this section or even give specific prompts, which may consist of only one word that are meant to serve as inspiration for the students. Students are then given the opportunity to share their writing, but they don't have to if they do not wish to. I particularly like the way that Anderson presents the journals when he has his first class of the year. He reads to the students from a moving memoir about bullying and asks them to use their journals to discuss bullying in their own experience. This not only serves as a way to get the students writing, as everyone has had experience with bullying, but also leads into his class policy about bullying. Students are prompted in a creative way to think about bullying and it reminds them of the ugliness that goes along with it. Most importantly, Anderson has begun the process of creating a writing community in which students are able to respect each other and their writing.
Anderson also discusses some rules that go along with the writing journals. He stresses that pages should never be torn out and that students are to make their own corrections at later times. Additionally, he discusses that when he has students doing a free writing exercise, they are told that the only way that they can do the exercise incorrectly is to stop writing before he tells them to end their thoughts.
One of the other sections of the journal is a place for students to record "Gems," which are full sentences or paragraphs that they find in anything that they read. Anderson writes that this creates a way for students to appreciate grammar like it is art. This concept also pairs well with Anderson's earlier discussions about creating a literature-rich environment by pulling sample sentences to share with the class to teach grammar. In this case, students can share their own and feel even more connected and important in the process of understanding and learning grammar in context.
In chapter 4 of Mechanically Inclined, Anderson introduces the idea of skipping wall posters, and instead hanging large sheets of butcher paper from the wall in order to create wall charts of what students are learning in the class. This hands-on approach allows students to watch teachers add to the list, add to it themselves, and use the list in class as a tool for reference. Anderson points out that this tactic is not only helpful to students, but also can help a teacher who is not fully comfortable memorizing everything that they have taught. I really like this idea and think that it applies to all kinds of learning types. Anderson writes that mechanics is a visual skill, and I think that this is a very fitting way to help students visualize concepts. Additionally, students are able to add to the list using sentence strips. I think that the idea of letting students add to the list really portrays the idea that everyone is there to help each other and learn together.
The other reading for this week, chapter 4 of Weaver's Grammar to Enrich & Enhance Writing, alerts readers to the fact that sometimes integrating grammar in writing is not enough. Even if a teacher is having students write sentences of their own, these must be connected to a broader purpose, along with being further discussed. Weaver writes that students should have the opportunity to examine grammar in a way that they are considering context, purpose, audience, and possibilities. Without fully discussing and applying grammar in writing, students are left disconnected, still believing that grammar is a separate subject and not applicable to reading and writing real literature. A particularly interesting example given is that of a teacher taking a paragraph from Lois Lowry's The Giver and changing the grammar to make the sentences short and choppy. The students are able to discuss the effect of this type of punctuation and allowed to change it. After creating their own versions, they are presented with the original paragraph and asked to discuss why Lowry made the decisions she did and how this works for the text. I really liked this example and think that it further demonstrates that grammar and how it works in writing is a type of art form.
Monday, February 13, 2012
English Teachers: Loosen Up, Read and Enjoy the Learning Process
This week, two words stuck out to me in our assigned readings: creativity and passion. These two words have a fairly obvious relationship which is especially relevant to young writers. Weaver provides the insight of Donald Graves to enforce this point. She writes that "children--everyone, really--will work much harder on a piece of writing when they are truly engaged with it and truly eager to share it with a wider audience" (183). In my own personal experience, this theory has proven very true. One of my favorite courses at Shippensburg University has been Creative Nonfiction Writing. In this course, students were allowed to write about their own life experiences in a way that would be engaging to an audience. This method works to engage the students as well as their audience because they are allowed to be creative while writing about what they know best: themselves. After all, how many people do you know that don't like to talk about themselves? The stipulation for expository writing, which is the main topic for discussion in this week's reading, is that students must be able to connect their own lives to whatever it is that they are writing about. By giving students some time to think about their topics and how to connect with them, "school writing" becomes less about boring facts and more about writing like an actual writer.
In addition to the idea of letting students incorporate themselves into their writing, Weaver iterates that the five-paragraph essay formula is hugely problematic for instructing students in their development as writers. She writes that this structure can be helpful in teaching students how to write an essay, but that students must be encouraged to build on the model and move past it. I could not agree with her more. The five-paragraph essay typically forces students into a personality-less ramble that lacks character and flow. It seems that if teachers allow students to deviate from the five-paragraph form they may make some mistakes and perhaps even lose focus. However, as Weaver describes in Chapter 9, which focuses on English language learners, errors reflect the learning process. Though Weaver is discussing ELL's as she discusses this concept, it is clear that it is also very applicable to all students.
It is also important to note that as students must be permitted to make their own errors in order to learn, that teachers must use caution as they correct students. I especially liked the Code-Switching Shopping List chart and think that this is a fun and respectful way to handle editing cultural language habits out of formal writing. The idea that formal English is as simple to put on and take off as an article of clothing makes a lot of sense and reinforces that students with diverse cultural backgrounds are not "wrong," but simply must make some adjustments for certain situations.
I also appreciated Weaver's discussion of Stephen Krashen's theory of Language Acquisition (which I am also learning about in my Teaching Reading to English Language Learner's class!) Weaver discusses the difference between students studying English and actually learning (acquiring) English. By immersing students in literature, they will be able to pick the language up, rather than having it put upon them. Learning this way will allow students to apply what they observe to their own practices. Isolating grammar and vocabulary does not reflect the same results.
The last topic that I want to discuss is that of standardized testing and what it means for "loosening" the strings of the binding structures and rules that are so common to red pen wielding English teachers. Weaver presents ideas about writing that are controversial and may be argued against by the presence of state standards which must be met for testing purposes. For many, the idea of passing over a sentence fragment without so much as making a mark is shocking and unheard of. However, Weaver provides evidence from scorer guidelines for Michigan's Educational Assessment Program. The document states that scorers "should not bring their own stylistic biases into the assessment" (180). The document continues to read that "a single well-turned phrase or well-chosen word or poignant example should be appreciated only to the extent that it affects the whole presentation"(180). It seems to me that this means that students should be taught that it is okay to express themselves and make art out of their writing as long as it is well-focused and meets the requirements of the prompts provided.
Giving students an environment that encourages them to love to write seems to be the key in my perspective. Though this is an easier task to say than do, I think that with practice and the right amount of freedom and structure, students can be creative as well as successful. In my mind, developing a passion (or at least a tolerance) for writing is the first step to becoming a well-rounded writer. In order for this to occurs, English teachers must allow students to make some of their own mistakes while also being less concerned with stiff structures and rules.
In addition to the idea of letting students incorporate themselves into their writing, Weaver iterates that the five-paragraph essay formula is hugely problematic for instructing students in their development as writers. She writes that this structure can be helpful in teaching students how to write an essay, but that students must be encouraged to build on the model and move past it. I could not agree with her more. The five-paragraph essay typically forces students into a personality-less ramble that lacks character and flow. It seems that if teachers allow students to deviate from the five-paragraph form they may make some mistakes and perhaps even lose focus. However, as Weaver describes in Chapter 9, which focuses on English language learners, errors reflect the learning process. Though Weaver is discussing ELL's as she discusses this concept, it is clear that it is also very applicable to all students.
It is also important to note that as students must be permitted to make their own errors in order to learn, that teachers must use caution as they correct students. I especially liked the Code-Switching Shopping List chart and think that this is a fun and respectful way to handle editing cultural language habits out of formal writing. The idea that formal English is as simple to put on and take off as an article of clothing makes a lot of sense and reinforces that students with diverse cultural backgrounds are not "wrong," but simply must make some adjustments for certain situations.
I also appreciated Weaver's discussion of Stephen Krashen's theory of Language Acquisition (which I am also learning about in my Teaching Reading to English Language Learner's class!) Weaver discusses the difference between students studying English and actually learning (acquiring) English. By immersing students in literature, they will be able to pick the language up, rather than having it put upon them. Learning this way will allow students to apply what they observe to their own practices. Isolating grammar and vocabulary does not reflect the same results.
The last topic that I want to discuss is that of standardized testing and what it means for "loosening" the strings of the binding structures and rules that are so common to red pen wielding English teachers. Weaver presents ideas about writing that are controversial and may be argued against by the presence of state standards which must be met for testing purposes. For many, the idea of passing over a sentence fragment without so much as making a mark is shocking and unheard of. However, Weaver provides evidence from scorer guidelines for Michigan's Educational Assessment Program. The document states that scorers "should not bring their own stylistic biases into the assessment" (180). The document continues to read that "a single well-turned phrase or well-chosen word or poignant example should be appreciated only to the extent that it affects the whole presentation"(180). It seems to me that this means that students should be taught that it is okay to express themselves and make art out of their writing as long as it is well-focused and meets the requirements of the prompts provided.
Giving students an environment that encourages them to love to write seems to be the key in my perspective. Though this is an easier task to say than do, I think that with practice and the right amount of freedom and structure, students can be creative as well as successful. In my mind, developing a passion (or at least a tolerance) for writing is the first step to becoming a well-rounded writer. In order for this to occurs, English teachers must allow students to make some of their own mistakes while also being less concerned with stiff structures and rules.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Student Writers as Budding Artists
I really enjoyed all of the reading for this week. Each piece connected to one another and I appreciated all of the perspectives that I was presented with. Additionally, I am starting to become more comfortable with the idea that every error does not need circled, crossed out, or changed. It's beginning to make sense, especially as I look back on my own experience as a student in middle and high school (and sometimes even college.) I can see that the marks on my papers did not always lead to an epiphany about what I did wrong and how to make it better.
To begin, I was struck by the excerpt from Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels' book, A Community of Writers. With the help of this chapter, I realized that the process of evaluation that English teachers put themselves through is ridiculous. I have never been forced to see this concept through such a perspective, as I have spent my life believing that as a student, it was for my own good to see all of my errors highlighted and that as a teacher in the future, it would help my students to correct their mistakes. Zemelman and Daniels write that this process is actually detrimental to students. They state, "In our attempt to be scrupulous, we overload the learner. Imagine yourself trying to learn any new content or skill this way; if your instructor insists on telling you every aspect of everything you did wrong on every attempt you ever make, you will probably feel overwhelmed and unable to sort out the key elements you need to focus on in your next attempt" (5). It seems that the cliche concept, "less is more," is true not only for makeup application and salt seasoning, but that it also is true for paper correcting.
Jeff Anderson, author of Mechanically Inclined, agrees with Zemelman and Daniels. Anderson mentions that students can only do so many things at one time. Therefore, a paper with unlimited markings will not help them to distinguish the patterns of their mistakes. Zemelman and Daniels' piece also connected well with Anderson's writing in how to justify the absence of red marks on students' papers. While Zemelman and Daniels suggest that one would not correct every mistake in the speech patterns of a toddler, Anderson writes similarly that one would also refrain from redrawing and correcting a child's art work. Anderson's example really got through to me as a writer. Writing is a process that I regard as a form of art, and as an aspiring writer, it has historically been painful to be heavily criticized about my work, whether it be about my grammar and mechanics or content. Perhaps if students were allowed to have this kind of personal pride in their work, knowing that it is their creation and not just a spattering of words carefully pasted together to match a certain criteria or rubric, they would care more to perfect it for their own sake.
Harry Noden seems to have many ideas about the connection between writing, grammar, and art. Noden outlines "Five Basic Brush Strokes" that are meant for writers to use in order to create their work. These brush strokes consist of five grammar concepts: the participle, the absolute, the appositive, adjectives shifted out of order, and action verbs. After reading about how each of these "brush strokes" help to intensify images and improve overall writing ability, I became very interested in how this method would be used in a classroom. I think it would be interesting to introduce this idea to students, describing these five steps as their tools for writing well throughout the class. It seems that this process could work well, as students would be taught what each concept is, how to use it, and be guided into putting the new skills into practice.
Anderson's method of teaching grammar in context is equally interesting. Anderson suggests that teachers pull small excerpts from the writing of actual novels, short stories, magazines, etc. These excerpts would be used to highlight how grammar is used in actual literature, rather than misused in erroneous sentences used for Daily Oral Language exercises on the blackboard. Anderson also suggests that teachers use student writing as models for sharing as well. Using good examples versus bad ones seems to be a really powerful concept. Why show students examples of bad writing to correct, when you could show them examples of exemplary writing to model themselves after? I think that it would be great to make a lesson consist of the literature that a class is currently studying and use examples from the text of passages that are well-written. These examples could be immediately used in another connecting exercise in which students do a journal entry about the story or a topic of their own choosing, but also have to use whatever device has been taught.
The combination of these readings with the readings previously used for class suggest that the more a student practices and is exposed to language and grammar within the context of reading and writing, the better they will get at it. I think that in teaching English, it will be vital to encourage students to read and write outside of class as much as they can, not because they have to, but instill a reason for them to want to do these things. Perhaps students could keep journals in class that the teacher does not look at, or at least not correct. The larger question seems to be, however, how do you convince a student that they love to read or write? This was not a difficult conclusion for me to come to, but how did I get there and is it possible to bring other students to that point?
To begin, I was struck by the excerpt from Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels' book, A Community of Writers. With the help of this chapter, I realized that the process of evaluation that English teachers put themselves through is ridiculous. I have never been forced to see this concept through such a perspective, as I have spent my life believing that as a student, it was for my own good to see all of my errors highlighted and that as a teacher in the future, it would help my students to correct their mistakes. Zemelman and Daniels write that this process is actually detrimental to students. They state, "In our attempt to be scrupulous, we overload the learner. Imagine yourself trying to learn any new content or skill this way; if your instructor insists on telling you every aspect of everything you did wrong on every attempt you ever make, you will probably feel overwhelmed and unable to sort out the key elements you need to focus on in your next attempt" (5). It seems that the cliche concept, "less is more," is true not only for makeup application and salt seasoning, but that it also is true for paper correcting.
Jeff Anderson, author of Mechanically Inclined, agrees with Zemelman and Daniels. Anderson mentions that students can only do so many things at one time. Therefore, a paper with unlimited markings will not help them to distinguish the patterns of their mistakes. Zemelman and Daniels' piece also connected well with Anderson's writing in how to justify the absence of red marks on students' papers. While Zemelman and Daniels suggest that one would not correct every mistake in the speech patterns of a toddler, Anderson writes similarly that one would also refrain from redrawing and correcting a child's art work. Anderson's example really got through to me as a writer. Writing is a process that I regard as a form of art, and as an aspiring writer, it has historically been painful to be heavily criticized about my work, whether it be about my grammar and mechanics or content. Perhaps if students were allowed to have this kind of personal pride in their work, knowing that it is their creation and not just a spattering of words carefully pasted together to match a certain criteria or rubric, they would care more to perfect it for their own sake.
Harry Noden seems to have many ideas about the connection between writing, grammar, and art. Noden outlines "Five Basic Brush Strokes" that are meant for writers to use in order to create their work. These brush strokes consist of five grammar concepts: the participle, the absolute, the appositive, adjectives shifted out of order, and action verbs. After reading about how each of these "brush strokes" help to intensify images and improve overall writing ability, I became very interested in how this method would be used in a classroom. I think it would be interesting to introduce this idea to students, describing these five steps as their tools for writing well throughout the class. It seems that this process could work well, as students would be taught what each concept is, how to use it, and be guided into putting the new skills into practice.
Anderson's method of teaching grammar in context is equally interesting. Anderson suggests that teachers pull small excerpts from the writing of actual novels, short stories, magazines, etc. These excerpts would be used to highlight how grammar is used in actual literature, rather than misused in erroneous sentences used for Daily Oral Language exercises on the blackboard. Anderson also suggests that teachers use student writing as models for sharing as well. Using good examples versus bad ones seems to be a really powerful concept. Why show students examples of bad writing to correct, when you could show them examples of exemplary writing to model themselves after? I think that it would be great to make a lesson consist of the literature that a class is currently studying and use examples from the text of passages that are well-written. These examples could be immediately used in another connecting exercise in which students do a journal entry about the story or a topic of their own choosing, but also have to use whatever device has been taught.
The combination of these readings with the readings previously used for class suggest that the more a student practices and is exposed to language and grammar within the context of reading and writing, the better they will get at it. I think that in teaching English, it will be vital to encourage students to read and write outside of class as much as they can, not because they have to, but instill a reason for them to want to do these things. Perhaps students could keep journals in class that the teacher does not look at, or at least not correct. The larger question seems to be, however, how do you convince a student that they love to read or write? This was not a difficult conclusion for me to come to, but how did I get there and is it possible to bring other students to that point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)