Final Thoughts

The argument is worth making

The premise of the paper - that a battle is raging - is clear from the outset, but one must read past the introduction to ascertain why this matters. At that point it becomes clear that the argument matters, as evidenced by the statement:  "As writing instructors attempt to demystify both the processes of composition and the complexities of the English language for their students, rigidity creates roadblocks in both comprehension and function" (2). Therefore for effective instruction, teachers need to plot a course in the battle, and the paper offers suggestions how. The conclusion affirms the relevance of the argument: "Despite the rigid sides taken in the Grammar Wars, grammar neither exists in isolation from the written form nor buried without purpose within it. Students should learn instead that power exists in the skilled manipulation of discourse that comes from both knowledge of grammar and the practice of it, and perhaps through their writing, a truce in the Grammar Wars will finally be achieved" (10).

The writer has (tried to) arrange the writing in line with purpose and audience

The paper’s audience is presumably educators, administrators or parents who have been affected by the contemporary public rhetoric surrounding grammar – the call by some to “return to the basics” vs. those who favor a less rigid approach. Therefore the arguments for either side need to be presented up front, explained through examples, and then debunked, affirmed or compromised. The paper suggests compromise. But first it presents the arguments: “Prescriptivists believe that certain usages are inherently correct and others inherently incorrect. And that to promote correct forms is to uphold truth, morality, excellence and a respect for the best of our civilization.”  According to this battle-mode perspective, Prescriptivists view the tolerance of incorrect forms as encouraging “relativism, vulgar populism, and the dumbing down of literate culture” (Pinker) Conversely, Descriptivists, Pinker writes, believe “that norms of correctness are arbitrary shibboleths of the ruling class, designed to keep the masses in their place” (1). Examples from both sides follow, and then the conclusion, which supports the compromise. All have external sources to supplement the paper’s arguments.

The style effectively supports the purpose, argument, and reading comprehension

The style of the paper is formal, but not exceedingly so. It allows some of the emotionality inherent in the debate to show through, and also connects it to the reader. For example, “In other words, the language that our society finds appropriate is based on agreed upon assumptions of what is acceptable and what is not, and we know the rules not necessarily because they are written down, but because “that’s how it’s done around here.” Most Milwaukeeans would feel rather silly saying “Y’all,” and most Southern Americans would have no idea at all what one was looking for if asked where the “bubbler” was” (2). The examples cited provide diverse voices as well, from the formality of Delpit’s “forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized sub-skills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors” (7) to the homespun approach of Mike Greiner, “fix the writing and the grammar will come along” (4), the voices are varied from formal to conversational, making the topic approachable from the varied views of the audience.

The argument and examples work together

There are arguments to support both sides of the cited debate, from Pinker’s definitions on the front pages to Skretta and Greiner’s opposing points of view. There are also sources that provide validation for the compromise model, from Rauch’s dual approaches to Ehrenworth and Vinton’s examples “thus we plan for, demonstrate, and coach the habits of [grammar] fluency” (8). Altogether these examples support the argument well.

All sources are cited appropriately, in MLA or APA format, in in-text and works cited references.

The citations are correct both within the text and in the works cited, and were checked for accuracy through two sources.

There is evidence of revision (which requires that the writer keep and then turn in all drafts with the final version).

There are eight drafts, and all the copies are saved for presentation if required. The paper substantially changed from the first draft to the last in both form and purpose.

Given the revision, the grammar and mechanics are appropriate for the audience and purpose. 


The mechanics are correct, and match the audience and purpose as stated through the examples above.

A criterion you can choose to use:

The writer took risks in the writing. (If you want this to be part of your own personal rubric, let me know what risk you want to take in your writing—such as trying a new style—in order that we can help you with it.)


The risk I took was starting essentially completely over when my perspective changed from absolute descriptivism to the compromise version.

Extra credit criterion: The writer uses "bubbler" appropriately in the paper.

Most Milwaukeeans would feel rather silly saying, "Y'all," and most Southern Americans would have no idea at all what one was looking for if asked where the "bubbler" was (2)

Reflections on Reflection

Properties that should exist:

• see change in the writer
• see change in opinion
• pure honesty - No conversion stories
• explains the process of change
• references the readings/the experience
• what I want to take from this
• see thinking in the writing/ re-evaluation

My reflection draft doesn't really explain much about how I have changed. I'm not sure how much I have "changed", I think it is more that I have learned tools to use, and will sort them out on the road ahead to match the challenges I face. There are some changes in opinion, again based on the learning experiences and applicability to future classroom use. I think I have been honest and direct, there is one bit of a conversion story in my approach to revisions, but it is more about changing my mind than changing myself. I think I explain the hows and whys of that change and other changes fairly well.

My entire reflection responds to the readings - too much, perhaps. I talk about what I read, what I liked or didn't like about it, and how I can or cannot use it in the future. The same thing is true for activities in class. Each step along the way was evaluated for its potential usefulness in teaching, with a few small tools to pack into my personal writing backpack.

I thought a lot about what we did and what I learned, and I think it shows in my analysis. It really helped to have to blogs to look at again.

As far as what is missing from the list....

I think part of a reflection could be whether or not you feel like the effort was worth it, and how you felt about the process.

Additional input from the class:

Where do we go from here?
What challenges were overcome?
What were the gaps - what was missing?
What further questions do I have?
What was unclear as we did it, but now makes sense?
How would I explain this class to others?
Connections to outside world and other areas of learning?
Meta-thinking?

Additional reflections:

I think my reflection focuses too much on the readings and not as much as it should with the meta-thinking and overview ways of analysis. I think I need to use fewer examples from the reading and more analysis of what was useful and why. I also think I could go into further analysis of where do I go from here.  I could talk about what I felt was missing, and also more about some of the class dynamics and how they affected the class.

The classroom dynamics were really significant, and need to be addressed in the reflection. "The not-obvious elements of the experience."

Video Drafting

Random thoughts.....

Thirty Second Message

Music
Voice-Over? (Authoritative - like a newscast)
Animation
Bright Colors
Text

Bullet Points vs Story?
Probably a story

Newsreel Documentary!
Black and White!
Oooooooo!

Grainy black and white video of soldiers fighting
Truce flag....

Do a storyboard.


The video formatting allows sound, which theoretically emotes a more emotional response. It allows animation or live-action movement, which makes it temporally relevant.  The video format is short and sweet, allowing a quick messaging that might make a point that sticks - a take-away sound bite.

Poster Pondering

Apparently this is a successful poster both visually and conceptually, so I think I will leave it alone except for a spacing tweak on the tag line. I would agree with the assessments as to its strengths, and now I will print it out on fancy paper and call this project done.

It was interesting to me that essentially the same message played well visually but not conceptually on this one, so I guess it will end up scrapped. Too bad. I thought it was pretty cool.

In terms of the rest of the posters and what I learned from them, I think it was helpful to see what people responded to.

The creative process for the poster was similar to writing in terms of starting from scratch in terms of deciding what was most important to convey, and then how to arrange it on the paper. I had a longer message that I edited down to say what needed to be said in a short, effective, visually appealing way.  I thought about my audience - which is how I ended up with the #2 pencils, as well as the terminology I used. I revised it a lot, just like writing drafts.

It was different from the writing process because I thought in pictures first. I started with the graphics - the idea of battling soldiers - and adapted my text to fit the concept. The revising process was far more about colors, fonts and layout than the content of the text - although I certainly wanted to convey my message. But to me the most important aspect was eye-catching visuals, so the process evolved from that perspective.

Writing Rubric - Status Update

The argument is worth making.
Since it has kept me up a lot of nights and is all over academic and popular writing, yes, I think the argument is worth making.
The writer has tried to arrange the writing in line with purpose and audience.
The latest draft accomplishes this much better than the first three, and somewhat better than the fourth.
The style effectively supports the proposal, argument and reading comprehension.
I changed the style to be a little more informal when I decided to include parents in my audience.
The argument and examples work together.
They do, and provide some ways the theories are being applied, and why.
All sources are cited appropriately.
I think so. MLA style.
There is evidence of revision. 
Yep. Five so far and there will be probably be a sixth.
Given the revision, grammar and mechanics are right.
I think so.

Additional Criterion:
Risk
The risk I took was in essentially junking what I thought was a good paper to go back to the invention stage and pretty much start over with a whole new point of view.

Extra Credit.
I had absolutely no intention to use "bubbler" in my work. It just happened, and there it is. Kismet.

Drafts From the Drawing Board

This is the second draft. 

This is the second version of the first draft.

This is the first version of the first draft (more or less).

Lessons from the Drawing Board....

I wanted my posters to "pop" with a succinct message that would intrigue a potential reader. For me, dramatic colors are important. Since my topic is writing, I wanted to use iconic images and colors - yellow for writing paper and classic pencils. Since my paper emphasizes the Grammar Wars, and resolution to them, I wanted a "military" (in a pacifist sort of way, of course) look to the graphics. I decided on toy soldiers.  On my first layout the text is both centered and off-center to try to gather interest. However on my second draft it was distracting - so the text is centered and the graphic is skewed. I used "pedagogy" on one and "teach" on the other, and at the moment I am leaning toward "teach" for the terminology. The text in the first poster has some passive voice, which I am not sure about, so in the second poster I took it out. I futzed a lot more with the first poster but I am happier with the second.

Revisionist

The availability of extensive time for the drafting process was literally a blessing and a curse. My paper went from one direction to an almost opposing one, and the process was painful. Historically (and a person my age has a lot of history, and thus papers, in her past) I have always done drafts and revisions but NEVER have I taken so much time at it. At some points in the process I just wanted to be done. It started out as a very reasonable paper - well-researched and (I say vainly) fairly well written.

But the need to look at it both repeatedly and from varying perspectives was like taking a gossip story out to a ladies' luncheon and letting them have at it. Opinions changed, new evidence was gathered, the argument as it had existed was ripped into threads with a plethora of new opinions and points of view to think about. It became a tattered remnant of what it once was, and needed not only triage but major resuscitation. And for quite a while it has been on life-support while I frantically searched for a cure.

New research, new ideas, pondering, inventing again, rewriting, ripping, rewriting - never before has a paper received so much time, love and hate before leaving my manipulating ways behind. The process was exhilarating and terrifying, often in the same moments.

But what I discovered was that my initial discomfort with the paper, rather forced upon me by peer and teacher feedback, initiated a deep thinking process that resulted in some real changes in perspective. Right in the middle of the revision process I was angrily forced to teach in a way I thought couldn't be worse, and when I called the instructor out on making me teach that way - I learned how wrong my premises were. I grew immensely as a writer, a potential teacher, and a special needs parent because of what I learned that day and throughout the process. I learned much more than what I ended up writing about.

I revised not only my paper but my way of thinking. It was a dreadful, painful process but it was full of ah-has. And like laughter, ah-has are good medicine for what ails both writer and written product. Now both are better.

Poster Pondering

The Take-Away: Truce called The Grammar Wars - The Reasons Why
Colors: Bright, Graphic Arguing People
Flags
Slogans

Does Totally Bad Exist?

It is difficult for me to imagine how certain forms of writing - I guess I would have to admit any art - can be perceived as anything but awful. If anything goes, depending on the audience, what determines effective communication? How do I begin to teach it? I attended a Present Music Concert once that my daughter, as a member of the Milwaukee Children's Choir, was performing in. As the concert began, random women came into the performance space shrieking discordant, exceedingly high notes while a drummer skipped around the room randomly pounding. It was extremely silly to me and it was all I could do not to laugh. The audience later raved about how wondrous it was. I thought it was garbage. Was it bad? Apparently not. Later, my daughter was performing as a soloist for a concert with the same pairings, and the director was talking her through the solo she was going to sing in his new composition. The two of them were trying to figure out how they could possibly teach the choir to sing their part because it made no musical sense. My daughter was twelve. She loved it. She is now a music major and a composer, so obviously it is only me that thinks it's bad. Personal bias, I suspect, rather than qualified critiquing.

Thinking Things Through

My paper began with my normal approach to drafting, tweaked based on the classroom exercises, and the first version ended up fairly solid (once it actually appeared). I think I could have argued for it as it stood, with a few minor technical point revisions, and let it stand as a well-written paper. Instead, I continued to think about the topic (well- maybe brooding would be a more accurate term), gathered additional information, and then thought some more. As I did so, my original paper began to unravel, and my rigid stance on its topic as well. In looking at the debate that is at the core of my argument, it became increasingly apparent to me that I was both changing my mind and in need of even more resources. As things unraveled further even my audience began to change. The paper fragmented and came apart, and now I am essentially starting over from a very different point of view. Some of the original research is still relevant, some not so much, and all of it is getting reworked to match my current perspective. That perspective was gained through the writing process, and I think that I now have a more effective point of view that will have some meaning to my potential audience instead of just a childlike foot stomp insisting on my way of doing things.

Composition on Composition: My Definition of Writing

Writing is a physical form of expressed ideas that transposes ethereal abstractions into concrete form just long enough to set into motion another being's imagination. Writing uses the tools of language to convey abstract thoughts into rhythms and formations, familiar or unique, that generate reactive expressive thought for both writer and reader, enabling the communication of all things human, from emotions to logic, from poetry to laboratory reports and indeed all things imaginable. The manipulation of the tools available to create writing determines how well thought is expressed, and thus determines the effectiveness of communication. There are choices to be made, and those choices frame the discourse both in form and function.

Writing is also a means of conveying what lurks within into what lurks without, for personal edification at the very least, and for sharing if one is so inclined.

Reflections on the State of the Draft

First off, my draft is, at this juncture, a bloody, tattered mess. It has been dissected into jagged, scarcely related pieces and has yet to be successfully reconstructed. Hopefully that will happen soon, but I am beginning to have serious doubts. I don't know any more what I think, let alone how to write it.

Having cleared that up, here is my current reflection:

• What would you describe as your purpose in your current draft?
• My current intent is to clear up the controversy about which way of teaching grammar is better

•  For whom are you writing?
• I thought I was writing for potential and vacillating English teachers, who I still might include in my audience, but I am starting to feel like I am also writing to a more public audience - parents perhaps - who might be demanding "the basics" in writing instruction and think that means prescriptive grammar.

•  How have you shaped your writing to address that audience, given your purpose?
• I am including more definitions and examples so that the paper makes sense to a broader audience.

• Describe the main points of your argument. Why are the main points arranged as they are in your current draft? Given your audience and purpose, what other arrangements might work?
• My main points right now are the definitions of the two approaches, why some prefer one over the other, and the advantages to not being so restrictive in application and pedagogy. They are arranged with the controversy explained first, the terms defined, and then the pros and cons, followed by the reasons to use a blended approach and hopefully further examples. Things could be rearranged but I think that would create more confusion than it would solve.

• Is your audience likely to find your sources persuasive? Why—or why not? Do you have enough sources? Are they from an appropriate time frame? Are they from sources appropriate to your argument and purpose?
• I think that most of my audience will think that they know more than they do about the subject, and will learn about not only the rigid sides of the argument but the advantages to compromises in between, and how that might look in a classroom, and my sources provide some illustrations for that. I think they are persuasive, and  once the paper is tightened up, will be even more so. I have too many sources, all of them contemporary and relevant. My challenge now is to get the paper down to a reasonable size from a massive, wandering chapter book.

• Describe the style of your writing. How is this style appropriate for your audience? How might you modify the style to be even more appropriate?
• My paper has vacillated from highly formal to more conversational and at the moment it is slanting toward more conversational because I think that is the appropriate tone for the argument I am making and the audience I am writing to.

•  What do you think your audience will walk away from your paper thinking? What might they feel when they finish reading? What do you hope they will do?
• I am hoping my audience will walk away from my paper with a greater understanding about why people get hyped up about grammar and the teaching of  it, and some ways that might work to attach teaching it.

•  What are your main choices in shaping your writing—the main strategies you have chosen—that will help readers finish reading so that they think, feel, and/or do what you just described?
• My hope is that my writing will provide ample support for my argument as well as an interesting enough approach to get people to read it, that in doing so they will find the arguments both relevant and useful. My strategies are to make it engaging, informative and a little bit provocative so that they will see that things are not as black and white as they may have initially thought.

• Based on all the above, what modifications do you think you will make in order to make your writing stronger still?
• It's a mess. Hopefully by applying all of these things it will clean itself up and make itself presentable. Soon, I hope, as well.

Grappling with Graphics

The three articles encompassing this week’s reading assignment provided some interesting fodder to chew upon as I approach the design of a visual accompaniment to my written work. I enjoyed Molly Bang’s highly visual and very colorful advice to design, as I appreciate all of her work (I’ve used some of her texts in my teaching), and I enjoyed both the photography and conceptions put forth by Shore. However it was the Dondis piece that I struggled with, not because of its length (albeit hefty), but because of its conflicting messages. Initially, the author seemed to suggest that all visual presentations require precise, analytical Gestalt-like thought,

Much of what we know about the interaction and effect of human perception on visual meaning is drawn from the research and experimentation in Gestalt psychology, but Gestalt thinking has more to offer than just the relationship between psychophysiological phenomena and visual expression. Its theoretical base is the belief that an approach to understanding and analyzing all systems requires recognizing that the system (or object or event, etcetera) as a whole is made up of interacting parts, which can be isolated and viewed as completely independent and then reassembled into the whole. No one unit of the system can be changed without modifying the whole. Any visual event or work is an incomparable example of this thesis since it was originally devised to exist as a well-balanced and inextricably involved totality. You can analyze any visual work from many points of view; one of the most revealing is to break it down into its constituent elements to better understand the whole. This process can provide deep insights into the nature of any visual medium as well as that of the individual work and the pre-visualization and making of a visual statement as well as the interpretation and response to it. (39 Dondis)

This formalized approach to visual art seemed to negate the visual instincts of creative artists, those of us who grab an oiled crayon and approach our

canvases with Berlioz innocence, scribbling until it “looks right.” According to the scoffing Dondis, scowling own his/her nose:

There is a Berlitz approach to visual communication. You don't have to decline verbs or spell words or learn syntax. You learn by doing. In the visual mode you pick up a pencil or crayon and you draw; you doodle out a rough plan for a new living room; you paint a sign announcing a public event. You can negotiate the visual means to make a message or a plan or an interpretation, but how does the effort fit in terms of visual literacy? The major difference between the direct, intuitive approach and visual literacy is the level of dependability and accuracy between the message encoded and the message received. In verbal communication what is spoken is heard only once. Knowing how to write affords a greater chance for control of effect and narrows the area of interpretation. So, also, with a visual message, but not quite. The complexity of the visual mode does not allow the narrow range of interpretation of language. But in-depth knowledge of the perceptual processes that govern response to visual stimuli increases the control of meaning. (37)

The entire text was instruction about how to avoid the mistakes of drawing without extensive pre-thinking, avoiding freewriting as a visual artist. Carefully deciding how to completely present a message prior to putting paint to canvas – or image to document – seemed dry and too analytical to me. It was all I could do not to grab my sketchbook and start doodling all over Dondis’ text. Fortunately there were so many pages I read it as an electronic document, so my pencil was left to fidget harmlessly in my hand. I approach my visual art with the same drafting process as my written art – I like it down on paper in a rough form and then it gets revised, and revised, and revised. But a good portion of it is what instinctively “feels right” to me visually with my “good eye.” My grammar and “poetic writing style” spring from the same well, and all are based on the deep flowing waters of my life experiences.

I did like Dondis’ analogies to written form – the focal point of a piece being analogous to a noun while minor details were the adjectives, the symmetries, lines and framings verbs to smaller adverbial details, and the formalization and terminologies of thinking were helpful reminders.

But in the end I thought Dondis contradicted his/her formal approach to visual creativity with a tribute to the artistic child within us:

Sight is the only necessity for visual understanding. One does not need to be literate to speak or understand language; one need not be visually literate to make or understand visual messages. These abilities are intrinsic in man and will emerge, to some extent, with or without teaching or models. As they develop in history, so they develop in the child. The visual input is of profound importance to understanding and survival. Yet the whole area of vision has been compartmentalized and de-emphasized as a primary means for communication. One explanation of this rather negative approach is that visual talent and competency were not considered available to all people, as verbal literacy was thought to be. If this were ever true, it certainly is no longer. (Dondis 67)

As is doubtlessly apparent, I tinker as an artist, running a bit of a graphic design business and also cartooning as one of my kazillion other side jobs, and thus I have some “feelings” about visual composition. Thus I read all three of this week’s pieces somewhat from the inside out. If I knew NOTHING about visual art, I might have found them more compelling, and I tried to imagine them from that perspective but failed. Sadly I carry a lot of emotional baggage about what is and what isn't good art (otherwise I would have gone to art school instead of becoming a chemistry major...but I digress). I know what kind of an artist I am – and I promise that my work will never have the peaceful “rightness” of symmetry or centering – it will be, not surprisingly, uncomfortably edgy, moving eyes and emotions in directions that hopefully compel thinking rather than complacent disinterest. Come to the fair! There will be eye candy there!

Language and Power

Lisa Delpit writes about the dilemma teachers face in working with student populations of color. She is particularly adamant about the disinterest white administrators, colleagues and researchers take in the perspectives of those who know the issues best – teachers and parents of color. Rather than listen to facts based on life realities as voiced by those who know the students best, many white, middle-class educators turn to irrelevant research and hearsay. This harms both the students and the process.  Delpit writes about the codes of power hidden in both language and society, and suggests that the best way for those not in power to access the codes is through direct, explicit instruction.  She maintains that well-intentioned liberal white teachers use indirect, persuasive language that undermines their authority with Black students. Delpit lists examples of communication in Black communities that is forceful and direct, and gets the point across. The author also maintains that in order to access power, students of color need to both affirm the language of their childhood and learn the language of those who hold societal power. Both have value, but one rules the world. Through keeping one’s own voice but learning to speak and write with the codes of power (code-switching), writes Delpit, students can access powerful society without diminishing their own identities. Delpit maintains that soft liberal teachers who don’t know how to manipulate the discourse opt out of teaching Black children altogether, leaving their students to languish in a world that makes little sense to them.

In an almost diametrically opposed perspective, Vershawn Ashanti Young writes that code switching perpetuates inequities, and it is instead through an equal blending of languages, with no higher or lower powers, that students of color can access the business world. Young writes extensively about Black maleness, and how schools can preserve the cultural identities of these young men without disparaging others who don’t match the stereotype. Young, unlike Delpit, struggles with his own black identity in the face of macho imagery, and thus sees the immediacy of need for the Black Vernacular English (BEV) used by his students. He suggests that there is also a WEV for white people, and the two need to be wed in common power and usage.  Students who have only one or the other are not fully capable of communicating at their best.

Thus, language is a powerful tool for both positive and negative messages.  How we use language determines how we are perceived, and to a certain extent how we perceive ourselves. There is a language of power in every society, and those with access to it are perceived as stronger and more effective communicators, and are thus in position to fully access all that society has to offer, including elevated social and economic statuses.

My personal experiences with language are based on growing up in a community that was/is literally on the “wrong side of the tracks” in Cleveland, Ohio. My brothers and I learned street language right out of a Bowery Boys movie, whereas my sister was immune to the need for it. We used it to communicate in rowdy games of stickball and kick the can, while she was isolated in feminine indoor pursuits. However in our home, proper “Standard” English was required, in fact our bibliophilic mother (and grandmother) insisted on pronouncing the “h” in words like wheat and white. As I went through school and read-out two libraries, I acquired an elitist language of my own, full of encyclopedic vocabulary that only my mother could love.  However, it was not cool in my neighborhood to be smart, so like many cited in Young’s article, I used two languages, one for the street and one for the rest of my life. I still do it when I need to meld with people who are uncomfortable with what they would call “hoity-toity” language. And my mother still says “who-ite.” Despite my own experiences, however, it is difficult for me not to judge people based on my own language snobbery, and I particularly struggle with colloquial southern dialects. I really can be an insufferable language snob.

I was terrified, incidentally, by both Delpit’s and Young’s articles. As I attempt to become a teacher I know I am bound by the same foolish middle-class good intentions that both of them reviled. I don’t know anything, really, about BEV, and so I am bound to screw it up. I am exactly one of those mild-mannered moms who will use all the wrong terminology despite wanting desperately to teach in an urban situation. I think I need coaching beforehand from a black teacher so that I can begin to learn both the language and the social codes.

Audience

The audience I would like to reach with my paper is primarily prospective English teachers. I think that many education students are uncomfortable with grammar, as evidenced by the course requirements at UWM. As these students approach their new classrooms, this discomfort will manifest itself in how they decide to teach grammar. Some of them actually hate grammar as much as their students.

I would like to offer them evidence that there are effective ways to teach grammar, so that as they begin to formulate lesson plans they can match the skills they want to teach with the population they will serve. Hopefully with a workable strategy for teaching grammar in place they will feel less intimidated by the mechanisms of it.

I think that the examples I provide and the reasons for them will help potential teachers to feel more justified in their reasons for teaching grammar they way they do, and in accessing the tools they need to use them. Instead of viewing grammar as a tedious chore that they have to figure out how to sneak into their lessons, I want them to see grammar as a useful, wonderful thing that will help them reach their students and make them not only better writers but better communicators in general. I want, in essence, to detoxify grammar.

Steps to get there:

Explaining what grammar really is
Providing ways of looking at it so that they can find themselves in the paper
Explaining the different ways it can be taught, and the reasons for them

Bean Assignment

Tom and Peg

Introduction to the Lesson:

Most readers don't differentiate approaches to reading when they change genres or texts. How would you read a science textbook differently than a poem? (discuss)

The reading of a science text requires analysis of factual data, but poetry requires an analysis of meaning.  To effectively read anything requires an understanding of the context, the audience, the author's biases, and your own personal limitations of understanding.

Before you read the following poem, briefly research the background of the author. Why might he have chosen to write about this topic?

Are there any aspects or terms in the poem that you don't understand?

What do you think the author means? Find a line or two within the poem that you think is relevant to the title.

Take some notes. Pick four lines of the poem and write your thoughts about the imagery, metaphors, or poetic techniques.

How would you read this differently if it was a science lesson about snow?

RLW Assigment

Peg and Brian's RLW Lesson

Overview/Lesson Introduction

Normally when we read, we read for analysis rather than technique. As you read the following piece, change your perspective from analyst to writer. What techniques does the author use and why? Mike Bunn suggested that readers should read as architects, examining how things are constructed.

Therefore, as you examine the piece, look for some choices the author made as he wrote. For example, what is the structure of the poem. Is a sonnet, haiku, or something else? (class discussion)

Now identify five additional techniques the author used.

Identify the purpose of the poem. Why is he writing?

Identify the audience for the poem? Does it include you?

How effective is the language? Does it communicate what you intended?

Would you use the same techniques to write about this topic?

Write a five verse poem on the same topic (poetry) to show why or why not, using his techniques if you agree, or your own if you do not.

Drifting in Drafting

In the course of revising my draft and living my life I encountered an incredibly lucid new source that completely changed my thinking on my topic. As I struggled to incorporate his thoughts and quotations into the framework of what I already had, I initially thought I needed to chuck the whole paper and start over. But as I ripped and wrenched my way through it I discovered a frightening reality - the same arguments I had made on one side could, with very few modifications in the framing and using the exact same quotes, support exactly the opposite. It was like seeing a single Biblical text used to love and hate the same group of people by diametrically opposed theologians. It shouldn't have worked but it did.

So my third/fourth/fifth/sixth draft which now exists as my "third draft" on paper is done. It still needs a lot of work to smooth out some rough edges (like the title), but for the moment it is closer to saying what I now want to say.

I am thankful for the revision process because it is helping me to really think through a topic that matters to me, and hopefully I will be able to clearly state a perspective that I can live with by the time I call it done.

Read All About It

John Bean’s analysis of reading skills offers insights as to why college students struggle with reading. He suggests that the skill set needed often remains undeveloped because bright students can get by without needing it, and less skilled readers are simply overwhelmed. Teachers are partially to blame for creating an unending circle of support for students who don’t do the reading by providing what they need in lectures, which they have to do because students have learned they can count on it.  Bean asserts that most college students don’t know how to differentiate their reading levels based on the task at hand, are unfamiliar with structural contexts, don’t engage with the author or the argument or don’t have the cultural or grammatical background they need to understand the text. Bean presents strategies for teachers to use to overcome these issues, such as having students prepare for interactive class activities that require them to read and apply the text before they come to class, avoiding superficial quizzes, opening up dialogues about exactly how to read difficult texts, based on personal experiences, teaching students to look up what they don’t know, developing a critical eye to see what the paper says and what it does by saying it, developing a critical eye for bias, assessing cultural codes, and to play the “believing and doubting game” – approaching the text dialectically, and taking copious notes all over the text not just anemically highlighting in yellow.

Mike Bunn’s approach to reading skills is an interactive one as well, but his approach is experiential vs. academic skill acquisition. He suggests analyzing the techniques of a text to determine how it was written, and why, so that the skills used in that piece could be applied later to a writer’s own work. He uses the metaphor of looking at reading not as finished work but as an architectural structure, and taking it apart metaphorically down to the nuts, bots and boards. He invites readers to analyze writing techniques bit by bit as they read – why is a particular sentence phrased a certain way, why did the writer open with a quote, etc. Readers should determine the audience the writer is writing for, and why a piece was written; the genre or type of writing it is; and if it is applicable to future writing assignments. All the techniques the writer uses should be analyzed for effectiveness and stored for future use as a reader reads, and reading should be intensively annotated in the margins and with additional notes. That is a point Bean makes as well. By reading in this way, Bean suggests that readers develop an arsenal of writing weaponry to use for future writing endeavors.

I found Bean’s approach far more useful to understand how and why students have trouble with deep reading, and given my experiences as an observer of student reading technique, as well as my own struggles with psychology research paper analysis (my nemesis this semester), I found some of his suggestions both apt and useful. Not much of what either author said felt particularly “new” to me, instead it seemed more like a clarification and elaboration of realities with which I was already familiar.  Something about Bean’s way of writing really irritated me, although I agreed somewhat with his premise I had a hard time taking him seriously. I think an intense focus on reading as a writer could actually make a struggling student less, not more effective as a reader. I thought Bean’s approach was more systematic and useful. I also found it incredibly entertaining to discover that Bean’s “Believing and Doubting Game” is essentially the assignment I wrote for our last class. So that answers what I might use from the readings! I think that much of what Bean has to say is very useful, and could be adapted from a college to a high school level.